"NDP backtracks on Iran comment "

Quote: Originally Posted by 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.

Quote: Originally Posted by Goober

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

Quote: Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Quote: Originally Posted by Retired_Can_Soldier

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

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo

I disagree.

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

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear

With what?

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear

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

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo

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.

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo

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

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo

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.

Quote: Originally Posted by Goober

Dewar - Is he not a Deputy Leader?

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear

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.

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo

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?

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo

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

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo

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?

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear

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

Hence party.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear

Pretty much.

It's a reflexion of the party.

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo

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.

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo

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.

Quote: Originally Posted by 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?

Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing

Before Harper was in government, there were always Conservative backbenchers speaking off on one thing or the other. The Conservatives were eaten alive by the press for it. He put the muzzle on them and he got elected (coincidence?). The NDP has learned the first lesson about what happens when you don't muzzle backbenchers. Sooner or later, the lesson will sink in and they too will muzzle.

In today's feeding frenzy of sound bytes and sloppy journalism, the saying loose lips sink ships is very true. Not an ideal world but the one we live in.

Quote: Originally Posted by Goober

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

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear

I think what those loose lips have to say, is vitally important.

Some of the most revealing information about people comes out under pressure, or from the hip.

Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing

I don't disagree with you but it tends to cause issues in the road to power and will be stifled if the desire of the party is power. The Tories have done it, The Liberals have done it, it is inevitable that the NDP will do it if they want the big prize of becoming elected.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear

I concur.

It was more the derogatory nature in which you framed journalism, re: these nice little tidbits of information, that I sort of objected to.

Not that I am defending the quality of today's journalism.

Quote: Originally Posted by 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.

Quote: Originally Posted by 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.

Quote: Originally Posted by IdRatherBeSkiing

Before Harper was in government, there were always Conservative backbenchers speaking off on one thing or the other. The Conservatives were eaten alive by the press for it. He put the muzzle on them and he got elected (coincidence?). The NDP has learned the first lesson about what happens when you don't muzzle backbenchers. Sooner or later, the lesson will sink in and they too will muzzle.

In today's feeding frenzy of sound bytes and sloppy journalism, the saying loose lips sink ships is very true. Not an ideal world but the one we live in.

Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave

Life would be simpler if politicians would state clearly if what they are saying is personal feelings or party policy.

Quote: Originally Posted by Goober

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