Hyer wants back in caucus

173 posts / 0 new
Last post
janfromthebruce

toaster wrote:

 

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.

Hyer wasn't disciplined for that. Rafferty also voted against the long gun registry and has a shadow cabinet position. Hyer expected to get a shadow cabinet position and when he didn't, he quit in a Huff.

Personally, when I reread up above, I was quite willing to give Hyer lots of latitude but I do know in talking with some members of his riding association that they were extremely upset and not supportive of him sitting as an independent and nor now as a Green.

Brachina

 What little respect for Hyer I had left is gone. Hyer should resign and run as a green, no floor crossing iz what he campaigned on, it was he voted for ans yet he does it anyway. At least when he was an independant he was keeping his word, now he just an asshole, the steroetypical politician instead of one of principle.

 And this is nothing to crow about for the greens, they can win seats, aside from May's democractical so they'll just steal them.

janfromthebruce

Well I doubt he would quit and run again b/c his chances of losing are high (hyer ha ha) and he needs to stick there b/c this way he gets his pension.

nicky

Rosemary Barton just gave Hyer and May a hrd time on Power and Politics.

Was it part of the NDP platform (that Hyer ran on in the last election that floor-crossers would have to face by-elections ? If so Hyer should be morally bound to resign his seat and seek re-election.

janfromthebruce

Good for Rosemary b/c he ran on that platform 4x.

addictedtomyipod

The only beneficiaries of this slimy transaction are May and Hyer.  There is nothing in it for the voters of that riding.

Hyer will be 69 in the next election and I somehow think he may not run but choose to retire.  This is just a great publicity stunt.

Aristotleded24

I really don't think that partisan NDP chest thumping is really that productive. For one, rambling about "resigning his seat and running in a by-election" is pointless, because everybody knows that's not going to happen. So Hyer joined the Greens. It may be slimy, hypocritical, dishonest, whatever. But getting into an argument is not going to help anything, in fact, that will just cause people to roll their eyes at all politicians, and that hurts everybody, including the NDP.

It happened. It's unfortunate, but it's not going to unhappen, so let it go. Besides, don't we have bigger fish to fry than worrying about a small party that only has a seat count in the single digits?

Brachina

 People like Hyer need to be called on there shit, they drag down the body politic if we don't.

janfromthebruce

This is just a one day thing and people will move on. However, one has to realize that resources, labour and material and money went into getting Hyer elected. He ran twice before he won and thus there was much built up here. And it goes against a key policy of the NDP to deal with floor crossers.

And I agree, I don't believe Hyer is going to run again in 2015 and at age 69 for a party at 3% in the polls.

Aristotleded24

janfromthebruce wrote:
And it goes against a key policy of the NDP to deal with floor crossers.

You mean a politician actually went back on what he promised? Knock me over with a feather! I'm shocked that such a thing would happen!

Aristotleded24

Brachina wrote:
People like Hyer need to be called on there shit, they drag down the body politic if we don't.

To the majority of the public who don't follow politics as closely as we do, this is just another in a long line of sleazy things that politicians do, and it will just make them roll their eyes. You're dealing with a public that is cynical enough to believe that all politicians (and yes, all politicians includes the political party led by Saint Thomas of Mulcair) are corrupt and sleazy by definition. And bleating about "running in a by-election" has never changed anything, so just let it go.

Pogo Pogo's picture

As mentioned it is only day.  Also the NDP distinguishes itself from other parties with this policy and this is as good a time as any to remind people of the change.  The media are looking for a reaction and ignoring the issue today is really not an option.

Ottawa Centre-Left

This was making the rounds yesterday, so surprised it didn't make it here yet!

 Basically, today in Canadian politics.

 

6079_Smith_W

... Or maybe not so sleazy. It doesn't really matter because he is right in that it will be the electorate who punish him or not, if it even gets that far. If they want him back they are free to vote him in again.

Going by past articles, and the interview I heard tonight I think he's overdoing it with the axe-grinding; after all, did he do this in the interests of grassroots democracy, or because of some spat with the party? He sure spent more time talking about the NDP than the greens - or the  people who elected him.

But there's nothing holding him to any rule about floor crossing. In any case, it's not really the NDP's business anymore, and hasn't been for awhile.

Catchfire Catchfire's picture

Sheesh, what is it, 2006? We're still making CSI Miami jokes? Cripes!

addictedtomyipod

I think Elizabeth May has programed him.  She never stops talking!

 

felixr

janfromthebruce wrote:

toaster wrote:

 

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.

Hyer wasn't disciplined for that. Rafferty also voted against the long gun registry and has a shadow cabinet position. Hyer expected to get a shadow cabinet position and when he didn't, he quit in a Huff.

Personally, when I reread up above, I was quite willing to give Hyer lots of latitude but I do know in talking with some members of his riding association that they were extremely upset and not supportive of him sitting as an independent and nor now as a Green.

I could be wrong but I remember both hyer and rafferty having their gun registry vote discipline lifted before hyer bolted. It's hard to believe there was any greater trigger than that drop from the shadow cabinet. Oh bother. Good luck to the 2015 NDP and let's hope Hyer does a half decent job this next two years as a constit MP because I too doubt he will run. I think he joined the Greens entirely for the increases notoriety.

janfromthebruce

felixr wrote:
janfromthebruce wrote:

toaster wrote:

 

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.

Hyer wasn't disciplined for that. Rafferty also voted against the long gun registry and has a shadow cabinet position. Hyer expected to get a shadow cabinet position and when he didn't, he quit in a Huff.

Personally, when I reread up above, I was quite willing to give Hyer lots of latitude but I do know in talking with some members of his riding association that they were extremely upset and not supportive of him sitting as an independent and nor now as a Green.

I could be wrong but I remember both hyer and rafferty having their gun registry vote discipline lifted before hyer bolted. It's hard to believe there was any greater trigger than that drop from the shadow cabinet. Oh bother. Good luck to the 2015 NDP and let's hope Hyer does a half decent job this next two years as a constit MP because I too doubt he will run. I think he joined the Greens entirely for the increases notoriety.

The discipline was lifted and so his bolting was about not getting a critic position. I really can't see Hyer running again and it's about helping his new BBF May.

And I do like the above comic and funny too. And no I hadn't seen it on the web but I wasn't looking either.

NorthReport

Kewl!

Ottawa Centre-Left wrote:

This was making the rounds yesterday, so surprised it didn't make it here yet!

 Basically, today in Canadian politics.

 

6079_Smith_W

janfromthebruce wrote:

I really can't see Hyer running again and it's about helping his new BBF May.

Not to be picky, and I am sure it was just a keyboard slip, but it's hard to resist. I think you mean BFF.

BBF would be something else entirely.

Aristotleded24

So Charlie Angus thinks that Hyer should step down and run in a by-election. I have a couple of questions for him:

1) Would Angus be of the same opinion if Hyer had been elected under the Liberal, Conservative, or Bloc Quebecois banners?

2) Where was the outrage among NDP ranks when Belinda Stronach crossed the floor to become a Liberal?

quizzical

uh.... just a mild guess 'cause it's none of the ndp's business re ms stronach!!!??~!!!! the ndp paid for  his campaign and wasted valuable resources on his punk ass. doesn't mean they own him but they've a right to be outraged. 

 

 i'd a thought it would've been obvious why there was no outrage and why there wouldn't be any if he were elected under any other "banner".

grangerock

Yes, he would be outraged because the NDP responded to the voters who were outraged when David Emmerson ran as a Liberal and won and within days crossed over to the Conservatives.  In the next election, Don Davies was elected for the NDP and has put forward a motion in the house to prevent floor crossing.

Aristotleded24

quizzical wrote:
uh.... just a mild guess 'cause it's none of the ndp's business re ms stronach!!!??~!!!! the ndp paid for  his campaign and wasted valuable resources on his punk ass. doesn't mean they own him but they've a right to be outraged.

That the NDP is outraged is one thing. To moralize about how Hyer (or St-Denise or Patry, for that matter) should have to "step down" and "face the voters" is hypocritical. Is it wrong to cross the floor or not? Or, if it depends on the circumstances, is it only wrong when floor-crossing hurts my party? Did the Conservatives not have a right to be angry over Belinda Stronach? Did the Liberals not have a right to be angry about Pat O'Brien, Wajid Khan, or anyone else? And how does arguing back and forth over this help average Canadians who think all politicians are corrupt anyways?

Policywonk

Aristotleded24 wrote:

quizzical wrote:
uh.... just a mild guess 'cause it's none of the ndp's business re ms stronach!!!??~!!!! the ndp paid for  his campaign and wasted valuable resources on his punk ass. doesn't mean they own him but they've a right to be outraged.

That the NDP is outraged is one thing. To moralize about how Hyer (or St-Denise or Patry, for that matter) should have to "step down" and "face the voters" is hypocritical. Is it wrong to cross the floor or not? Or, if it depends on the circumstances, is it only wrong when floor-crossing hurts my party? Did the Conservatives not have a right to be angry over Belinda Stronach? Did the Liberals not have a right to be angry about Pat O'Brien, Wajid Khan, or anyone else? And how does arguing back and forth over this help average Canadians who think all politicians are corrupt anyways?

Read the answer about Emerson. It is essentially the NDP position that anyone who wants to cross the floor should step down and run in a by-election, so yes it is wrong no matter what Party they belonged to before or after the floor crossing. Whether they should be expressing outrage or merely disappointment is a legitimate question though.

socialdemocrati...

As far as I know, the NDP has been ruthlessly consistent about this. The first few major floor crossings in the early 2000s informed the policy. If there's more chatter about this one, it's because it hits closer to home. But the NDP was criticizing those other floor crossings too. Were there any major NDP floor crossings until after the orange wave anyway?

quizzical

ummmmm....i'm an average canadian and i think most politicians are corrupt and i don't get the point you're trying to make with "average canadian" as a reason not to put out a personal opinion. it's wrong to cross the floor imv as an average voter who'd  like to believe some politicians aren't corrupt and totally self-serving.

i'm sure the conservatives were furious with ms stronach. they wasted time and resources on her. though i admit i don't know much 'bout her crossing other than she did maybe they didn't waste any and she was just good to go. 

then again.... looking back from this viewpoint if she learned how corrupt and morally bankrupt the conservatives were and had to get away you could hardly blame her for running away from them!! even in a scenario of running 'cause you found out how ewey the party your in is...i'd think an MP should step down and run in a by-election.

imv everyone should be pissed at a floor crosser and even more pissed if they don't step down for a by-election.

Aristotleded24

My point is that I don't see how moralizing is really convincing anyone. And I specifically singled out the Belinda Stronach incident because the NDP budget of 2005 would not have passed without that happening. I don't recall any NDP criticism of that move (I do stand to be corrected), which is probably not a coincidence.

My point is (and I'm just as guilty as the rest) is that Hyer crossed the floor, we can't do anything about it now, so we should let it go and just move on.

quizzical

the ndp had a budget in 2005? how can it be?Undecided

no i don't agree. i read up thread a ndp mp has a motion to stop it. what better time to promote it?  it's not like the ndp started the bill after the fact it was before. and considering there's  so much floor crossing between liberals and conservatives you'd think they would be happy it couldn't happen again to them.

addictedtomyipod

The NDP recognizes that floor crossings are done with self interest by MP's.  They never benefit the voters that put them there but just pisses them off.  They also say they will not accept floor crossers and if an MP must leave his party he/she should sit as an independent until the next election or resign and run again in a by-election.  Pretty straight forward.

 

Floor crossing is purly self interest politics and I think new letters should be added to Bruce Hyers name.  Bruce Hyer, MP, FC

6079_Smith_W

addictedtomyipod wrote:

The NDP recognizes that floor crossings are done with self interest by MP's.

That's not always the case. And I'd say it's generally only the opinion of the party being left. Would such a rule even be enforcable? I don't think so.

And what would it matter if it were? If it came right down to it you could have a member aligning his or herself with another party in all but name. Technically does a member even have to join a party to be in cabinet? That's not the case with a coalition.

Whatever Hyer's motive, I don't like the idea of ANY rule that puts the authority of political parties above the relationship between member and constituents. They elected the member; it's not a case of the party buying ANYTHING.

It is bad enough that party leaders can already refuse to recognize the authority of riding associations.

This is an old story, a practice that is completely valid,  is not going to stop, and it is waste of time and energy.  Focusing on it  does nothing but make the party look mean and petty.

janfromthebruce

6079_Smith_W wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

I really can't see Hyer running again and it's about helping his new BBF May.

Not to be picky, and I am sure it was just a keyboard slip, but it's hard to resist. I think you mean BFF.

BBF would be something else entirely.

yes, and thanks for catching my typo. I never meant the other.

Geoff

addictedtomyipod wrote:

The NDP recognizes that floor crossings are done with self interest by MP's.  They never benefit the voters that put them there but just pisses them off.  They also say they will not accept floor crossers and if an MP must leave his party he/she should sit as an independent until the next election or resign and run again in a by-election.  Pretty straight forward.

 

Floor crossing is purly self interest politics and I think new letters should be added to Bruce Hyers name.  Bruce Hyer, MP, FC

If it's "purely self-interest politics", why on earth did he join the Green Party?  Hyer could be criticized in many ways for what he did, but if it was self-interest, he seriously slipped on a banana with this move. 

I'm a card-carrying New Democrat, and I'd be curious to know more about his motives, and any lessons there might be for the NDP as a result of Hyer's defection.

 

janfromthebruce

it's about respecting voters wishes and reminds me of sailing under a false flag. The NDP has been consistent in floor crossing no matter what. It has not been something of convenience. Perhaps doing some searching on the internet would have provided the long held position at the federal level.

It's acceptable to leave a party and sit as an independent but quite another to take up with another party as self interest. In evoking Emersion, for example, it was a stark example of self interest, and same with Belinda S. who got an entancement with a cabinet position.

In St. Denis situation, it was that she did not want to move to the riding she was elected in and which the NDP was insisting she move to.

6079_Smith_W

Well if the NDP want to take a stand and refuse to let someone into their party under those conditions, fine. It's good that they're consistent, and I WAS aware of that; it's irrelevant. It's none of their business to insist other parties and ex members do anything and it's really up to the voters to dole out any punishment - or not.

For all the painting of this as naked opportunism (and perhaps it is) there were actually issues and reasons behind this. I think the those complaining would do better to keep a little bit on the high road and focus on those slightly more real issues, rather than party fortunes.

As for the fallout from this, if you want justice I have to wonder how the Greens are feeling about an interview in which their new member spends more time complaining about his ex than telling us how wonderful his new party is.

But again. not the NDP's problem. But  the degree that people play into that helps that trash talk work as a distraction from on real issues.

 

 

 

nicky

Hyer was elected running on an NDP platform that included by-elections for floor-crossers. Even as an independent he should honour that commitment.

 

6079_Smith_W

So what?

And do you thing that is the most important issue on which he has disagreements with the party? I sure don't.

I also don't see Stephen Harper (or the Liberals) whining a year after the fact about members who have jumped from his ship. Why? because it looks petulant, and since, as in this case, he has no power to do anything about it, it would make him look weak.

There are a lot of better ways to handle this situation than the one the NDP have chosen. I have to question what they thought they'd get out of this other than playing right into Hyer's accusations.

 

 

addictedtomyipod

How have they handled it?  I saw one quote from Charlie Angus that said that they do not believe in floor crossing, which they would do for all floor crossers.  Nothing on their website, didn't see any tweets either.

 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

So what?

And do you thing that is the most important issue on which he has disagreements with the party? I sure don't.

I also don't see Stephen Harper (or the Liberals) whining a year after the fact about members who have jumped from his ship. Why? because it looks petulant, and since, as in this case, he has no power to do anything about it, it would make him look weak.

There are a lot of better ways to handle this situation than the one the NDP have chosen. I have to question what they thought they'd get out of this other than playing right into Hyer's accusations.

 

 

 

 

6079_Smith_W
NorthReport

Ho, hum.

This clown is Just another political misfit loser like Blair Wilson who can't be a team player and who will get crushed in the next election. Every party has a few of them.

Time to move on, nothing new here.

Aristotleded24

6079_Smith_W wrote:
So what?

And do you thing that is the most important issue on which he has disagreements with the party? I sure don't.

I also don't see Stephen Harper (or the Liberals) whining a year after the fact about members who have jumped from his ship. Why? because it looks petulant, and since, as in this case, he has no power to do anything about it, it would make him look weak.

There are a lot of better ways to handle this situation than the one the NDP have chosen. I have to question what they thought they'd get out of this other than playing right into Hyer's accusations.

I agree.

I'll also point out that for all the NDP's chest thumping about floor crossing, nobody has ever tried to cross the floor to join the NDP. So I suppose that if an MP were to cross the floor and join the NDP tomorrow, and that if the NDP suddenly reversed its position on floor crossing and accepted this person, that all you who are angry with Hyer would demand that this MP step down and run in a by-election under the NDP banner?

quizzical

why would an mp cross the "floor" to the ndp when they know what the ndp policy is? my average world view answer is they wouldn't....

they can't appear to have forgotten or don't care about their constituents who voted for the ndp and Hyer only to be abandined by him either.

 

Aristotleded24

quizzical wrote:
why would an mp cross the "floor" to the ndp when they know what the ndp policy is? my average world view answer is they wouldn't....

Might have something to do with the fact that (until recently anyways) crossing the floor to the federal NDP isn't exactly a great way to further your own political career.

wage zombie

6079_Smith_W wrote:
So what?

And do you thing that is the most important issue on which he has disagreements with the party? I sure don't.

I also don't see Stephen Harper (or the Liberals) whining a year after the fact about members who have jumped from his ship. Why? because it looks petulant, and since, as in this case, he has no power to do anything about it, it would make him look weak.

There are a lot of better ways to handle this situation than the one the NDP have chosen. I have to question what they thought they'd get out of this other than playing right into Hyer's accusations.

Aristotleded24 wrote:

I agree.

I also agree.  I think whining about someone crossing the floor to another party is bad politics, even if that person ran on a platform that was against floor crossing.

However I do think the NDP's policy about floor-crossing is a good one, and when floor crossing does happen, I think we should take the opportunity to connect the dots and highlight a good proposed policy/rule.

As for Belinda Stronach being a unique case, I can think of three possible differences in her case.

1) Stronach ran for leadership of the new CPC, getting 2nd and 35% of the vote.  So I think that clear willingness to both serve the party as well as trying unsuccessfully to influence the party gave her some leeway.

2) Stronach crossed the floor before David Emerson.  Emerson's floor crossing was so over the top, weeks after the election, that it created a perspective shift about floor crossing.  Stronach's floor crossing was not viwed thorugh the shifted perspective.

3) The Belinda Stronach-Peter Mckay breakup drama that was intertwined with the floor crossing made it a little too hot to handle--ie. subconsciously equating Stronach's right to leave a relationship to her right to join another party, or a number of other misinterpretations.  For those who think this is ridiculous, remember the Peter Mckay potato field interview (unfortunately this does not seem to be on youtube).

Quote:

I'll also point out that for all the NDP's chest thumping about floor crossing, nobody has ever tried to cross the floor to join the NDP. So I suppose that if an MP were to cross the floor and join the NDP tomorrow, and that if the NDP suddenly reversed its position on floor crossing and accepted this person, that all you who are angry with Hyer would demand that this MP step down and run in a by-election under the NDP banner?

I think some would clearly call the hypocrisy on that.  I think others would admit to wishing that Mulcair had enforced the policy and made them sit as independents.

I would hope that all of the NDP's chest thumping means that they know they would be rocking the boat if they reversed the policy.

David Young

The last time I can remember someone 'crossing the floor' to sit as a New Democrat was Robert Toupin in 1986.  Elected as a Progressive Conservative in 1984 in the riding of Terrebonne, he became an Independent after leaving the Conservatives (and after being rejected by the Liberals), joined the NDP for 10 months, and then left to sit as an Independent M.P. again.

Since the 1988 election, there has been a long list of M.P.s elected to represent one party but defecting to another:

Lucien Bouchard, Scott Brison, John Bryden, David Emerson, Andre Harvey, Jim Jones, Warjid Khan, David Kilgour, Rick Laliberte, Robert Lanctot, Nik LeBlanc, Keith Martin, Bill Matthews, Claude Patry, Joe Peschisolido, Louis Plamondon, David Price, Gilles Rocheleau, Lise St.-Denis, Diane St.-Jacques, Belinda Stronich, Benoit Tremblay, Garth Turner, Pierrette Venne, and Angela Voutour.  And now Bruce Hyer.

Not one joined the NDP, while 5 were elected as New Democrats (Laliberte, Patry, St.-Denis, Voutour & Hyer), but went to another party.

Hyer merely joins a long list of 'Who dat?' in Canadian political history.

 

 

 

janfromthebruce

Like the senate abolishment, in which we would not appoint to the senate would be the same situation for a floor crosser who wants to sit as an NDP member. They would have to run in a byelection.

There was not a problem with someone leaving the party caucas and sitting as an independent. And a reminder that back when emerson floor crossed to the cons, Libby Davis blogged on it. On MP David Emerson Crossing the Floor

What Mr. Emerson has done is wrong. New Democrats believe it should be illegal. That's why the NDP introduced legislation requiring any MP who wants to switch parties to seek voters' approval in a by-election.

grangerock

Was just at a Christmas gathering in EMay's riding and people were estatic that EMay has attracted Bruce Hyer to her party.  They know my husband is a socialist and asked him what he thought about Mulcair's anger.  My husband replied there is a lot to get angry about.  People only get EMay's point of view in this riding  and she had to have something positive to talk about after the poor showing in byelections and her deputy leader having to step down.

Stockholm

For all we know Maria Mourani would like to join the NDP now that she has been kicked out of the BQ...but she knows that the NDP has a crystal clear policy that anyone wanting to switch parties must resign and run in a byelection under their new party banner and maybe she doesn't want to have to run in a byelection in Ahuntsic right now. That being said, she could always sit as an independent and then when parliament is dissolved in 2015 she could announce that she wants the NDP nomination in Ahuntsic.

The NDP has a record of being very consistent on this sort of thing. Its always been NDP policy to oppose the senate and not to have any NDP senators. Paul Martin tried to name Lillian Dyck of Saskatchewan as an NDP senator. The NDP refused to let her sit under that designation or attend any caucus meetings and she has been an independent ever since...so it should be.

Just because puttinng out a statement and a press release criticizing Hyer move to the Greens won't change anything doesn't mean they should still make a statement. By that logic, since the Tories have a majority government and can do whatever they want, ther NDP should just go home and not bother criticizing any government policies since it won't make any difference. I mean seriously, why is the NDP wasting its time attacking the Conservative for ending all mail delivery? its not like they can stop in or anything. It may not move any votes today - but its worth puttng out a strong statement that at the very least might caucus voters and local media in Thunder Bay to ask Hyer some tough questions and make life a little more difficult for him in his own riding.

BTW: When Emerson defected to the Tories in 2006, there were huge petitions and protests in vancouver-Kingsway and thousands of people put signs on their lawns attacking Emerson for violating their trust. Emerson was apparently so taken aback by the backlash against his floor crossing that it was a key reason why he didn't bother to seek re-election as a Tory in 2008!

6079_Smith_W

@ Stockholm

It would be entirely different if this groundswell of protest was coming from his constituents.

And the problem with them complaining and not having any power to change is that this isn't some pressing issue like the budget, or even gun control, but rather their claiming ownership of an MP.

They want to make it a rule for their party? Fine, though I certainly don't see it as necessary, and as I said, I don't actually like rules in which parties presume to assert their authority over elected representatives. It is bad enough as it is. I'd say there's a range in between the examples of Emerson and Dyck, some cases in which it made perfect sense for a representative to change parties.

And in the British system, it used to be that if a member was named fo cabinet, s/he would have to go back to a by-election.

Again. At this piont the situation is completely out of their hands. There is nothing they can do here, and no goal that I can see. It is a matter between Hyer, the Greens, and his constituents. Making a big deal out of it at this point, and trying to undermine Hyer  is just petulant. That is for his constituents to decide.

 

brian1966

I agree with Justin Ling's article that there needs to be some reform about MPs that cross floors.  Make them sit as Independants.  Obviously the worse offender was PM martin when he used a Con to keep his government afloat... and even made her a Minister.  Haper did the same when he won for the first time.

 

http://looniepolitics.com/lament-floor-crosser/

Pages