"NDP backtracks on Iran comment "

[Machjo]

NDP backtracks on Iran comment | Canada | News | Toronto Sun

I find the title of the article misleading, since Mulcair is not Dewar. They were each expressing their ideas. Honestly, the fact that an MP can comment without approval from the party leader and without having to agree with him is a breath of fresh air.

And Mulcair's choosing to hold his tongue until he knows more about the reason for the closure tells me he might have a more rational mind.

Aside from the misleading title of the article, I don't see much in there to attack. One could argue Dewar spoke too soon before knowing all his facts, which could look bad on him. As for Mulcair though, two points in his favour:

1. He didn't muzzle his MP, and
2. He's willing to think things out before commenting.

Does the Toronto Sun see these as negative traits?

 

[WLDB]

I'd agree with that. Even if what Dewar said was wrong its good that he was allowed to speak. Every MP should be allowed to speak about anything without being muzzled by their leaders. Unfortunately that is now very rare.

 

[Machjo]

Now seeing Dewar is my MP, though, I guess from where I'm sitting it's a shot against the NDP. But if you're sitting in Mulcair's riding, it might be a different matter.

 

[CDNBear]

No he didn't muzzle his MP. His MP just shot his mouth off without having all the intel and being briefed on the issue. A common enough occurrence in politics. Although if that was a Conservative MP, it would be the views of the PM and the Party.

While I see through Mulcair's silly assertion that Dewar was referring to Canadians in Iranian prisons. Mulcair's careful wording indicates he has been made aware of what precipitated the closure, although he may not be privy to the whole dossier. I actually commend him for his savvy on that point.

State secrets and all.

As for what the Sun finds to be negative, I can't see where they commented either way. They simply reported the reaction and subsequent clean up, of the Opposition Leader, to one of his MP's shooting his mouth off, without all the facts.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

It sounds to me like Mulcair is doing something Jack Layton would have never done. And for that I applaud him.

 

[Goober]

No he didn't muzzle his MP. His MP just shot his mouth off without having all the intel and being briefed on the issue. A common enough occurrence in politics. Although if that was a Conservative MP, it would be the views of the PM and the Party.

While I see through Mulcair's silly assertion that Dewar was referring to Canadians in Iranian prisons. Mulcair's careful wording indicates he has been made aware of what precipitated the closure, although he may not be privy to the whole dossier. I actually commend him for his savvy on that point.

State secrets and all.

As for what the Sun finds to be negative, I can't see where they commented either way. They simply reported the reaction and subsequent clean up, of the Opposition Leader, to one of his MP's shooting his mouth off, without all the facts.

As a member of the Privy Council, Mulcair would have access to information that his MP’s would not.

 

[CDNBear]

As a member of the Privy Council, Mulcair would have access to information that his MP’s would not.

No doubt.

Hence why his MP shot his mouth off, looked silly and Mulcair is making silly excuses for him.

 

[Machjo]

No he didn't muzzle his MP. His MP just shot his mouth off without having all the intel and being briefed on the issue. A common enough occurrence in politics. Although if that was a Conservative MP, it would be the views of the PM and the Party.

I disagree. Just as some idiots on the right will blame individual actions on the NDP, so idiots on the left do the same re: the Conservative Party. I'm pro-life for example, but at the same time it's stupid to blame Harper if a backbencher tries to bring up the question of defining when life begins. I would have voted in favour of such a motion myself, but Harper voted against. End of story.

As for what the Sun finds to be negative, I can't see where they commented either way. They simply reported the reaction and subsequent clean up, of the Opposition Leader, to one of his MP's shooting his mouth off, without all the facts.

My issue was with the title of the article, suggesting it was NDP policy that was backtracked on when clearly it was the ideas of individuals that was being expressed. Just like when idiots on th eleft accuse the Conservative Party of bringing up the abortion debate when it was a backbencheer that did it and harper voted against. Same idea.

It sounds to me like Mulcair is doing something Jack Layton would have never done. And for that I applaud him.

And what's that, exactly?

 

[CDNBear]

I disagree.

With what? The rest of that paragraph pretty much agrees with me, lol.

My issue was with the title of the article...

It implies a that the Sun thinks the traits you somehow gleaned from that article, are negatives?

 

[Machjo]

With what?

the idea that you can praise or blame a party for the words and actions of individual members.

 

[Goober]

When will people realize they are either all Liars or they are all GD liars.

 

[Machjo]

It implies a that the Sun thinks the traits you somehow gleaned from that article, are negatives?

The title implies that Dewar's comment was on behalf of the NDP and so was Mulcair's and therefore somehow a change of party policy backtracking, when in fact that was not the case. By the sounds of it they were both speaking each on their own behalf.

 

[Goober]

The title implies that Dewar's comment was on behalf of the NDP and so was Mulcair's and therefore somehow a change of party policy backtracking, when in fact that was not the case. By the sounds of it they were both speaking each on their own behalf.

Dewar - Is he not a Deputy Leader?

 

[CDNBear]

the idea that you can praise or blame a party for the words and actions of individual members.

OK.

The title implies that Dewar's comment was on behalf of the NDP and so was Mulcair's and therefore somehow a change of party policy backtracking, when in fact that was not the case. By the sounds of it they were both speaking each on their own behalf.

When an MP speaks, it is always on behalf of the party.

They are the party.

If it was a collection of individuals, it wouldn't be called a party.

 

[Machjo]

Dewar - Is he not a Deputy Leader?

He still neve said that he was speaking on behalf of the NDP at the time.

Ambrose voted in favour of the bill defining the beginning of life and she's Minister for Women. That still should not reflect on any other individual conservative member, right?

OK.

When an MP speaks, it is always on behalf of the party.

They are the party.

If it was a collection of individuals, it wouldn't be called a party.

So the MP who introduced a bill to define when life begins was expressing this on behalf of the conservative Party?

 

[CDNBear]

Ambrose voted in favour of the bill defining the beginning of life and she's Minister for Women. That still should not reflect on any other individual conservative member, right?

Right. It doesn't reflect on any other member. It reflects on the whole.

Hence party.

So the MP who introduced a bill to define when life begins was expressing this on behalf of the conservative Party?

Pretty much.

It's a reflexion of the party.

 

[Goober]

He still neve said that he was speaking on behalf of the NDP at the time.

Ambrose voted in favour of the bill defining the beginning of life and she's Minister for Women. That still should not reflect on any other individual conservative member, right?



So the MP who introduced a bill to define when life begins was expressing this on behalf of the conservative Party?

No people take it that he is - It would be his responsibility to state otherwise.

 

[Machjo]

Right. It doesn't reflect on any other member. It reflects on the whole.

Hence party.

Oh, I see what you mean. In the sense that it does, I agree with you.I don't agree that it ought to though.

After all, if your local Conservative MP or candidate is pro-choice, why should a pro-life conservative's stance affect your decision to vote for that person or not. Heck, just as there are pro-choice Conservatives, there are also pro-life Liberals. So let's say you were pro-life, and your local Liberal candidate is pro-life and your local Conservative candidate is pro-choice, and let's suppose that you vote based on that point alone, do you vote for the Conservative candidate because there are more pro-lifers in his party, or do you vote for the Liberal candidate becausse he himself is pro-choice in spite of most of his party being pro-choice?

Pretty much.

It's a reflexion of the party.

So when Harper makes it clear that he won't open that debate, and that's a reflexion of the party too, then you essentially have a party with a split personality.

 

[Goober]

Oh, I see what you mean. In the sense that it does, I agree with you.I don't agree that it ought to though.

After all, if your local Conservative MP or candidate is pro-choice, why should a pro-life conservative's stance affect your decision to vote for that person or not. Heck, just as there are pro-choice Conservatives, there are also pro-life Liberals. So let's say you were pro-life, and your local Liberal candidate is pro-life and your local Conservative candidate is pro-choice, and let's suppose that you vote based on that point alone, do you vote for the Conservative candidate because there are more pro-lifers in his party, or do you vote for the Liberal candidate becausse he himself is pro-choice in spite of most of his party being pro-choice?



So when Harper makes it clear that he won't open that debate, and that's a reflexion of the party too, then you essentially have a party with a split personality.

Harper did not open the debate- Private Members Bill- Harper did not support it- Free vote - asked his Cabinet to vote against - key word - asked -

 

[CDNBear]

I don't agree that it ought to though.

Yes it ought to. A whole is the sum of all it's parts.

After all, if your local Conservative MP or candidate is pro-choice, why should a pro-life conservative's stance affect your decision to vote for that person or not. Heck, just as there are pro-choice Conservatives, there are also pro-life Liberals. So let's say you were pro-life, and your local Liberal candidate is pro-life and your local Conservative candidate is pro-choice, and let's suppose that you vote based on that point alone, do you vote for the Conservative candidate because there are more pro-lifers in his party, or do you vote for the Liberal candidate becausse he himself is pro-choice in spite of most of his party being pro-choice?

I can't answer that question.

Because I don't vote on single talking point issues.

They're a silly distraction from the sum of all that is important.

So when Harper makes it clear that he won't open that debate, and that's a reflexion of the party too, then you essentially have a party with a split personality.

Yes, because despite the nuttery of the loony left, the Conservative Party doesn't dance in lock step.

Neither do the Liberals or the NDP for that matter.

Though when an MP speaks, they are a representative of the Party, they are still individuals.

Ain't politics grand?

It's never as simple as this or that.