Tory MP warned of suspension

[jdobbin]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianp...T-tNwhxyPQtpRuA

Milliken told MPs several weeks ago that he would no longer tolerate them using members' statements, which precede question period each day, to engage in personal attacks.

He began cutting off MPs who ignored his ruling.

To avoid being silenced, Kramp and other Tory MPs have taken to issuing scathing assessments of an unidentified politician, whom they identify as Ignatieff only at the very end of their statements - when it's too late for Milliken to cut them off.

Milliken's warning suggests he's willing to take more drastic measures to put a stop to the personal attacks.

Harper Tories just can't stop themselves from personal attacks.

Suspensions are probably coming down the pike.

[Moonbox]

More boring, trivial and meaningless 'news' brought to us by our very own Liberal zealout.

Next up, Jdobbin will dish out the dirt on the private lives of Tory MP's extended family!

Headline: Jim Flaherty's second cousin's daughter got a tatoo!

Stay tuned for more!

Edited April 2, 2009 by Moonbox

[Shakeyhands]

why the need for a personal attack?

[jdobbin]

More boring, trivial and meaningless 'news' brought to us by our very own Liberal zealout.

More personalizing from someone who just doesn't get it.

Next up, Jdobbin will dish out the dirt on the private lives of the Tory MP's extended family! Stay tuned for more!

Obviously you have not read any posts I've written about what I think about attacking family members of politicians. Just another example of personalizing that you just can't seem to avoid in posting.

For the last number of sessions, all MPs have been expressing exasperation about the lack of control in Commons debates. The use of personal attacks just ahead of Question Period in the Member's portion of Common's time is a Tory invention. As Parliamentary experts have pointed out, the rules forbade attacks in this time and until 2006, it was a rule that was obeyed.

Tory MPs continue to resist this rule and then claim that Parliament is dysfunctional. I'm sorry. The Speaker is correct in warning of future suspensions. Afterall, he was elected by all MPs to keep the House in order.

[jdobbin]

why the need for a personal attack?

As he has mentioned before, I've asked for it.

It is a rather repugnant reason and one we've heard used for other offences.

[MontyBurns]

As Parliamentary experts have pointed out, the rules forbade attacks in this time and until 2006, it was a rule that was obeyed.

I guess we should return to the John Cretin days.

[jdobbin]

I guess we should return to the John Cretin days.

There were no insults happening during Member's time as independent experts have pointed out.

Edited April 2, 2009 by jdobbin

[MontyBurns]

There were no insults happening during Member's time as independent experts have pointed out.

Yeah. So we should return to the good old days of John Cretin.

[Shakeyhands]

Yeah. So we should return to the good old days of John Cretin.

LOVE the misspelling.... it speaks volumes, and not in the way you intended.

[Shakeyhands]

double post

Edited April 2, 2009 by Shakeyhands

[Argus]

Tory MPs continue to resist this rule and then claim that Parliament is dysfunctional. I'm sorry. The Speaker is correct in warning of future suspensions. Afterall, he was elected by all MPs to keep the House in order.

I remember when the Reform party came to Ottawa and wanted to improve the mood and dignity of parliament. They wanted to refrain from attacks, and even to avoid doing things like pounding on desks. And actually tried to improve the decorum of the House.

The Liberal Party responded with an absolute avalanch of sneering, contemptuous insults, from the Prime Mininster on down. Invective was hurled across the centre aisle almost non-stop, presided over by a placid Liberal speaker who knew when not to hear anything. Every question answered was responded to with a smirking insult and put-down.

Most of those people are still in the House. Most of the senior Liberal shadow cabinet were involved. The man who decided on this "strategy" of trying to taunt and make the Reformers look like ignorant hicks, was recently appointed by Michael Ignatieff as the Liberal Party's chief election strategist.

You guys are sooooo innocent.

[MontyBurns]

LOVE the misspelling.... it speaks volumes, and not in the way you intended.

Wouldn't you like to return to the Cretin days? I sure would. Prior to 2006 the world was a much better place. And John Cretin was the man who made it all possible.

[Michael Hardner]

Argus

I remember when the Reform party came to Ottawa and wanted to improve the mood and dignity of parliament. They wanted to refrain from attacks, and even to avoid doing things like pounding on desks. And actually tried to improve the decorum of the House.

So what you're saying is that this is another example of the Reform principles that have been thrown on the bonfire, along with:

*Manning not moving into Stornaway (or turning it into a bingo hall)

*Not accepting Govt pensions

*[edited]Reforming the senate

I think there was at least one more major reversal, but I don't remember what it was.

Edited April 2, 2009 by Michael Hardner

[jdobbin]

I remember when the Reform party came to Ottawa and wanted to improve the mood and dignity of parliament. They wanted to refrain from attacks, and even to avoid doing things like pounding on desks. And actually tried to improve the decorum of the House.

The pounding of desks ended when television was allowed in the House in 1977. You can look that up if you want.

You guys are sooooo innocent.

In other words, let's just carry on.

[Argus]

Argus

So what you're saying is that this is another example of the Reform principles that have been thrown on the bonfire, along with:

*Manning not moving into Stornaway (or turning it into a bingo hall)

*Not accepting Govt pensions

*[edited]Reforming the senate

I think there was at least one more major reversal, but I don't remember what it was.

I've already spoken about the abandonment of principles before. I will say that in this case the antipathy and mutual disrespect in the House is entirely the responsibility of the Liberal Party of Canada. It was engineered deliberately by Warren Kinsella during Mulroney's time, as most visibly carried out by the "rat pack", and enthusiastically continued by Liberal MPs and cabinet ministers in both the Jean Chretien and Paul Martin governments. Both those men embraced and relished taunting and sneering at anyone who asked questions, and being as insulting as possible in their replies. They and their cabinet colleagues rarely missed an opportunity to demonstate the absolute contempt in which they held the Reform -> Alliance MPs, and that certainly had its effect over the years, to the point the Conservatives now utterly loath and despise the Liberals, and vice versa.

[Argus]

The pounding of desks ended when television was allowed in the House in 1977. You can look that up if you want.

In other words, let's just carry on.

In other words I have yet to see ANY effort on the part of your party similar to the effort the Reformers made when they came to Ottawa. On the contrary, whenever I see a Liberal on TV he's always doing his best to be as insulting as possible towards Conservatives in some way or other, rather than simply speaking to policy. Policy, given your party doesn't seem to actually have any, seems to be irrelevent.

And I doubt hiring the Prince of Darkness as your chief strategist is going to lead you down the road to polite and dignified behaviour any time soon.

Edited April 2, 2009 by Argus

[jdobbin]

They and their cabinet colleagues rarely missed an opportunity to demonstate the absolute contempt in which they held the Reform -> Alliance MPs, and that certainly had its effect over the years, to the point the Conservatives now utterly loath and despise the Liberals, and vice versa.

And the issue that was brought up during the most recent election for Speaker was how to get proper decorum in the House.

The Speaker, elected by all members in secret, is trying to get Member's time back on track. The Tories are resisting this.

[jdobbin]

In other words I have yet to see ANY effort on the part of your party similar to the effort the Reformers made when they came to Ottawa.

Look, if you don't want to see the Speaker act according to the rules that are in place just say so.

[Argus]

Look, if you don't want to see the Speaker act according to the rules that are in place just say so.

I have nothing against the speaker or his actions. It's the hypocrisy of your whining I wish to point out.

[Shakeyhands]

I have nothing against the speaker or his actions. It's the hypocrisy of your whining I wish to point out.

This seems to just be more "but the Liberals"

[jdobbin]

I have nothing against the speaker or his actions. It's the hypocrisy of your whining I wish to point out.

So, it is more important to you to attack me rather just simply agreeing that the Speaker has the power to do the job that was asked of him when he was elected this Parliament.

[Argus]

So, it is more important to you to attack me rather just simply agreeing that the Speaker has the power to do the job that was asked of him when he was elected this Parliament.

Your post was condemning the Tories for their ill-manners and insults in the Commons. I don't regard it as off-topic to point out just how ill-mannered and insulting your own members have been, or that your own party started this downward spiral into the gutter and have expressed boundless enthusiasm on their way down for the direction they were headed. Nor to point out that the party which you are representing here has made no effort at putting itself above that sort of style of behaviour, but indeed, has hired the master of the gutter to further hone their efforts.

[jdobbin]

Your post was condemning the Tories for their ill-manners and insults in the Commons.

I was pointing out that the Member's Statements has never been used for that purpose by any party till now and the the Tories were warned to go back to standard practice which they don't seem to want to do.

I don't regard it as off-topic to point out just how ill-mannered and insulting your own members have been, or that your own party started this downward spiral into the gutter and have expressed boundless enthusiasm on their way down for the direction they were headed. Nor to point out that the party which you are representing here has made no effort at putting itself above that sort of style of behaviour, but indeed, has hired the master of the gutter to further hone their efforts.

Have the Liberals ever used Member's Statements to carry out attacks?

[Moonbox]

More personalizing from someone who just doesn't get it.

Obviously you have not read any posts I've written about what I think about attacking family members of politicians. Just another example of personalizing that you just can't seem to avoid in posting.

I'm mocking your post. YOU don't get it. I'm mocking the depth to which you'll plumb the internet to find everything and anything that can be in any ways construed as anti-CPC, no matter how trivial. You've turned it into a crusade and now you've take to obscuring and omitting relevant facts.

You failed to mention here that the Speaker Peter Milliken is a Liberal MP. The Tory MP in question has been warned for accusing Ignatieff of hypocrisy on a number of issues. THAT'S the personal attacks we're talking about here.

Like the Liberal hack you are, however, you deliberately left out the sentence where they explained they were only criticizing Ignatieff's hypocrisy, because you'd like to spin that they're attacking his personal life or something. Nice try.

The news is thus: Liberal Speaker threatens to suspend Tory MP for criticizing Liberal Leader for hypocrisy.

When you give the FULL story, it's even less interesting, but that doesn't do anything to promote your Bible Thumping Liberal cheerleading, so you omit details to fudge the story.

[MontyBurns]

I'm mocking your post. YOU don't get it. I'm mocking the depth to which you'll plumb the internet to find everything and anything that can be in any ways construed as anti-CPC, no matter how trivial. You've turned it into a crusade and now you've take to obscuring and omitting relevant facts.

You failed to mention here that the Speaker Peter Milliken is a Liberal MP. The Tory MP in question has been warned for accusing Ignatieff of hypocrisy on a number of issues. THAT'S the personal attacks we're talking about here.

Like the Liberal hack you are, however, you deliberately left out the sentence where they explained they were only criticizing Ignatieff's hypocrisy, because you'd like to spin that they're attacking his personal life or something. Nice try.

The news is thus: Liberal Speaker threatens to suspend Tory MP for criticizing Liberal Leader for hypocrisy.

When you give the FULL story, it's even less interesting, but that doesn't do anything to promote your Bible Thumping Liberal cheerleading, so you omit details to fudge the story.

Jdobbin is a conservative-hating, John Cretin bum buddy.