Hyer wants back in caucus

173 posts / 0 new
Last post
JeffWells
Hyer wants back in caucus

...

JeffWells

I expect he was taken aback by the opposition to his decision in his riding.

 

 

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

 

OTTAWA - Just a week after he quit the federal NDP caucus, it sounds like Ontario MP Bruce Hyer might want back in.

...

But in a lengthy letter over the weekend to his constituency association's annual general meeting, obtained by The Canadian Press, Hyer says he's still a New Democrat and he's willing to reconsider his decision and to apologize.

Hyer defended the independent voice needed to represent his northern constituents but says in the letter he's ready — in his words — to accept most party discipline and drudgery.

A spokesman in Mulcair's office was unaware of Hyer's letter and said the MP did not speak to the NDP leader before he quit last week and hasn't approached Mulcair about returning.

 

 

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/hyer-tells-riding-association-hes-ready-to-apologize-and-return-to-ndp-caucus-149571985.html

quizzical

 sounds pretty flakey

JeffWells

quizzical wrote:

 sounds pretty flakey

 

Yes. Still, I think the party should demonstrate readiness to welcome him back and accept his concessions that he's made a mistake. (Besides, maybe he's so alienated his riding association that he'll face a strong nomination challenge.)

quizzical

they can only accept him back if he talks to them

JeffWells

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.

Paul Gross
Very Far Away

Paul Gross wrote:

The Return

 

Hilarious.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

(on edit)so basically, this guy still can't accept that Mulcair had the right to exclude him from the shadow cabinet after he voted to remove the Long Run Registry.

He's demanding to be freed from party discipline without consequences.  Mulcair should ignore him  The NDP can win this riding without him anyway.

adma

This all sounds more like provincial-Rae-government first-termer stuff--strange for a Federal second-termer...

Stockholm

Ken Burch wrote:

(on edit)so basically, this guy still can't accept that Mulcair had the right to exclude him from the shadow cabinet after he voted to remove the Long Run Registry.

He's demanding to be freed from party discipline without consequences.  Mulcair should ignore him  The NDP can win this riding without him anyway.

This has nothing to do with the LGR vote. rafferty also broke ranks on the LGR vote and is is in the shadow cabinet. Other MPs who towed the party line on the LGR were dropped. Mulcair has the right to name whoever he wants to a cabinet portfolio for whatever reason.

JeffWells

And everything we've seen from Hyer since suggests Mulcair exercised good judgement in excluding him.

Stockholm

The only rationale I can see for welcoming Hyer back into caucus would be the "better to have someone inside the tent pissing out rather than outside the tent pissing in" argument. It might be better to let Hyer come crawling back if he promises to be as quiet as a church mouse and not make any waves for the next three years, if the alternative is to have him outside the NDP and constantly making a nuisance of himself with negative comments and leaking stories about stuff that had had happened in caucus in the past etc...

Mucker

I think he should be allowed back into caucus.  Any other approach would run a serious risk of appearing petty.  Allowing him back sends a solid message that people who disagree on some issues will not be excluded from the discussion on that point alone.  It takes varying positions to make good policy, and all points of view can be heard.

JeffWells

If he apologizes and accepts the discipline of caucus he should be welcomed back. If he's demanding carte blanche for his conscience, then better to have him sitting apart, living with his regrets and voting "95% of the time" with the NDP. Otherwise the party has a Garth Turner on its hands. And who wants that?

Howard

Hyer is making a fool out of himself. I say, don't interfere with the grace of his fall.

Lou Arab Lou Arab's picture

Mucker wrote:

I think he should be allowed back into caucus.  Any other approach would run a serious risk of appearing petty.  Allowing him back sends a solid message that people who disagree on some issues will not be excluded from the discussion on that point alone.  It takes varying positions to make good policy, and all points of view can be heard.

There may be good reasons to let him back in caucus but let's all try to remember that:

a) There are other MPs who took the same position on the LGR who are still in caucus, and have senior critic portfolios.  That's a pretty strong signal that 'people who disagree on some issues will not be excluded from the discussion..' and

b) He was not kicked out of caucus for his views.  He left, of his own will, months after the LGR came up in the House.

David Young

JeffWells wrote:

If he apologizes and accepts the discipline of caucus he should be welcomed back. If he's demanding carte blanche for his conscience, then better to have him sitting apart, living with his regrets and voting "95% of the time" with the NDP. Otherwise the party has a Garth Turner on its hands. And who wants that?

I agree with you Jeff.

I'd rather not have another Bev Desjarlais-type scenario, where having a former NDP M.P. running as an Independent causes a split vote to let another party win the seat.

We need to have all of our guns aimed at the Harperites in 2015, and none at ourselves.

 

Caissa

David Young wrote:

We need to have all of our guns aimed at the Harperites in 2015, and none at ourselves.

 

Ony the registered ones. Wink

 

janfromthebruce

I think he should be let back in and for all the reasons mentioned above. We are suppose to be a party of being inclusive and also empathetic towards others - empathy and understanding begins with those closest to us.

Caissa

I agree. Yet he left in a very public manner. At the very least he owes the leader and the caucus and explanation as to why he wants to return and how he intends to operate as a member of caucus.

Mucker

I think allowing him back would be a good chance for Mulcair to remove any remaining doubt about his ability to "work with people".  He was slammed during the leadership campaign for being too strong-willed and petty.  What could be less petty than allowing Hyer back into the fold?

When you really think about it, there isn't much to be gained by refusing to take him back.  It just looks like hubris.

JeffWells

I think what's in doubt here is Hyer's ability to work with others. If he's saying now, essentially, that the party owes him an apology, then the party is better off without him.

DSloth

I'm all for letting Hyer back in but there is a fundamental tension here, everyone knows Hyer quit because he didn't get into the shadow cabinet (there wasn't exactly any subtelty to his timing) but by storming off like that, then changing his mind, then making demands for his readmission he's pretty definitively demonstrated why he should never be allowed into a critic role. 

Vansterdam Kid

Paul Gross wrote:

The Return

Like.

Unionist

I think Mulcair should apologize to him; not let him back; then apologize to Bob Rae, and hope he returns.

Well, I didn't want to just repeat someone else's suggestion, so I made up my own.

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Unionist wrote:

I think Mulcair should apologize to him; not let him back; then apologize to Bob Rae, and hope he returns.

Well, I didn't want to just repeat someone else's suggestion, so I made up my own.

Hope he returns to Ontario?  Is there going to be a Ont. NDP leadership race. I think Bob would be a shoo in if he ran. 

I think Mulcair should apologize to May because its May Day and Hyer should apologize to everyone in the country for misusing his 15 minutes of fame.

Unionist

I think Mulcair should sing: "I want to take you, Hyer!"

 

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture
Caissa

You must be Stoned.

Unionist

Caissa wrote:

You must be Stoned.

Is that an observation, or an exhortation?

 

Caissa

Admiration.

Unionist

Excuse me while I kiss the sky.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Some thought he sang "Scuse me while I kiss this guy".

 

PS: Unionist, your "I think Mulcair should sing: "I want to take you, Hyer!" was the funniest thing I've read this year! Laughing

Caissa

Everyone is for Hyer. We're just dickering over the price.

Unionist

You know what I love about babble (let me count the ways)? Once we start a string of "clever" silliness, instead of petering out, it just keeps getting better!

[Long pause while everyone searches intently for the non-existent pun or 60s pop culture reference in the previous para.]

Caissa

Way to kill a good buzz, man.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Caissa wrote:

You must be Stoned.

Sly of you to notice I'm part of that Family.

Boom shakalaka

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Boom Boom wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Excuse me while I kiss the sky.

 

Some thought he sang "Scuse me while I kiss this guy"

That was Hendrix, dammit!  And all John Fogerty could say in response was "There's a bathroom on the right".  To which Felix Cavillere replied "Life could be ecstasy, you and me and Leslie

 

...Groovin'."

 

Brachina

Hyer still hasn't talked to Mulcair yet, does Hyer think Mulcair bites?

Also Hyer's terms is Mulcair whip votes less, but has he whipped a single vote yet? Even the abortian vote wasn't whipped because the whole cacus and I'm guessing Hyer is pro-choice.

As far as I can tell Hyer realizes he made a fool of himself and is now trying to save face.

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

What I can't get my head around is this...most of the NDP caucus, regardless of their position on the LGR, was excluded from the shadow cabinet.  Why does Hyer think he was any more entitled to a place there than anybody else?

janfromthebruce

ha ha ha - oh that was so good! happy face for tonight's "laugh in"

 

kropotkin1951 wrote:

Caissa wrote:

You must be Stoned.

Sly of you to notice I'm part of that Family.

Boom shakalaka

______________________________________________________________________________________ Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!

Wilf Day

Unionist wrote:
instead of petering out, . . .

Shafted again? Sorry to prick your bubble, but language is a only a tool, so reload your rod, cock your pistol, and fire away.

Unionist

Yay Wilf! Joining in the jollity! Good one. Or are you just dicking me around?

 

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

And remember, Babblers...i.t's not the length of your post...it's what you DO with it.

toaster

Ken Burch wrote:

What I can't get my head around is this...most of the NDP caucus, regardless of their position on the LGR, was excluded from the shadow cabinet.  Why does Hyer think he was any more entitled to a place there than anybody else?

Because before the Orange Crush of 2011, all members had a position in the shadow cabinet.  Then all these Quebec members get in (which is a good thing), and they take the spots of those who had the spots before them.  I might add Hyer has a Master of Science degree, much more qualified than many of the NDP shadow cabinet.

flight from kamakura

thing is that this guy's actions here with quiting the caucus essentially confirm that he's not fit for cabinet.  now that lsd is gone, there probably isn't another member in the entire caucus who'd go flamboyance like this.  the guy may be re-admitted to caucus but, after this, he'll never be anything more than a backbencher, a vote.  and if the guy thinks the ndp needs him, he should talk to niki ashton.

Unionist

toaster wrote:

 I might add Hyer has a Master of Science degree, much more qualified than many of the NDP shadow cabinet.

He runs a tourism business, doesn't he? I think he's overqualified to sit in the NDP caucus.

 

toaster

Unionist wrote:

toaster wrote:

 I might add Hyer has a Master of Science degree, much more qualified than many of the NDP shadow cabinet.

He runs a tourism business, doesn't he? I think he's overqualified to sit in the NDP caucus.

 

He promotes eco-tourism in North-western Ontario.  I'd say thats a good progressive career.  His Master of Science degree is in Forestry.  When I look at his resume, and at Julian's, I'm not so sure I'd pick Julian.  Actually, I'd probably divide the portfolio, Julian could keep Energy, Hyer takes Natural Resources.  I'm curious to know why you think people like Dube, Lapointe, Nantel, or any one of the Deputy Critics (especially Brosseau, or Anne Minh-Thu Quach who got Deputy Environment, something that Hyer is much more qualified for) are more qualified?

Unionist

toaster wrote:
  I'm curious to know why you think people like Dube, Lapointe, Nantel, or any one of the Deputy Critics (especially Brosseau, or Anne Minh-Thu Quach who got Deputy Environment, something that Hyer is much more qualified for) are more qualified?

I think you're confusing the qualifications of elected representatives with those of public service functionaries. Elected representatives should be faithful, dedicated, self-sacrificing, attentive servants of the people, ready to marshall all of society's resources in the service of that cause. I don't think a minister of finance needs to be an accountant, nor does a minister of industry and commerce need to be an entrepeneur, nor does a minister of foreign affairs need to come from the diplomatic corps. In fact, I believe that such individual training, education, or experience may often serve as a serious obstacle that needs to be overcome, so that the individual may perceive their role in a new and liberated way.

I'm talking, of course, about progressive political representatives in a progressive government, or shadow role. I'm not talking about the trained seals whose sole purpose in life is to keep working people enslaved and keep the rich swimming in obscene pools of wealth.

So far, Bruce Hyer has proven himself totally incapable of fulfilling the role of a progressive elected representative. I'm not saying he can't change. I'm just saying he has a choice.

janfromthebruce

And I think that having background, knowledge, interest, can be very helpful. It suggest otherwise, is distainful of education/knowledge but also the various path of knowledge creation and aquistion. The younger MPs were in higher education pathways so I would suggest that they too value education and knowledge attainment.

I think that Hyer acted with a knee jerk reaction but to suggest that he didn't have the knowledge and skillset is not the reason why he was not chosen this time.  I hope he sticks around. Our experiences provide insight and opportunity for growth.

 

Pages