"NDP backtracks on Iran comment "

[Machjo]

Here's a classic example of someone being stupid:

Abortion, immigration debates test limits of dialogue in House of Commons - Yahoo! News Canada

"the NDP criticized Prime Minister Stephen Harper for allowing Conservative MP Stephen Woodworth to put forward Motion 312, a controversial proposal that sought to re-examine how Canadian law defines a human being."

Now I don't know if the writer was just being lazy by mentioning the NDP rather than the specific MP in question who was criticizing Harper here, but whoever it was seems to be asking that Party leaders should be all-powerful ueber-gods who can muzzle MPs who belong to their party at will.

Honestly, regardless of whether you are pro-life or pro-choice, certainly if you believe in democracy you would be thankful Harper does not have that kind of power and would hope he never does. Does Mulcair hope to have that kind of power if he ever becomes PM? I hope not.

Same with the long-gun registry. The previous NDP leader tried to punish those MPs that voted against the registry, certainly they had a right to do so, no. And certainly no one will now think the NDP is pro-gun just because a Few new-Democrats voted to scrap the registry, so why is it different for the Conservative Party?

 

[Colpy]

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?

Considering the fact that Dewar is the Foreign Affairs critic for the NDP, any comment he makes on foreign affairs can certainly be considered NDP policy.

That makes his speaking out of turn problematic.

 

[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.

 

[CDNBear]

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.

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.

 

[taxslave]

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

And the ones that don't get caught are g-o-o-d liars.

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

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.

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.

 

[CDNBear]

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.

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.

 

[taxslave]

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

 

[IdRatherBeSkiing]

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.

The comments about today's "journalists" was probably derogatory and definitely intentional.

 

[WLDB]

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.

As Mulcair himself did after Bin Laden was killed.

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.

He's my MP too. Not my favourite MP though. I did not vote for him during the leadership race.

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.

Indeed. What Conservative/Reform/Alliance backbenchers did before they formed a government was nice. Allowing MPs to have their own opinions and vote how they saw fit was one of the few things I liked about the Reform party. Its unfortunate that Harper totally reversed that policy.

I dont blame the MP who left the NDP caucus after being muzzled by the leadership. Now he has the freedom to vote as he sees fit and say what he likes as an independent. In some ways I envy his constituents. They can now influence how he votes whereas most of the rest of us - not so much. It isnt really anything new. Jack Layton did it as well. Whipping the vote over the gun registry was a stupid move. A fair number of NDP MPs promised their constituents they would vote in favour of scraping it...well, till they were whipped. Personally I think they should have kept their promise to their constituents. They should come before the party.

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

I like that idea. I imagine the leaders still wouldnt though. The media would still try to tie personal opinions to the official party position.

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

Call me naive if you wish but I dont think all of them are. Sure, there's a ton of them but there are also some who are pretty honest. Though if we are constantly electing liars I guess its our own fault for putting them there.

 

[Machjo]

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.

I'm not so much into gotcha moments. Enyone can say something stupid off the cuff at times and I can forgive that to a degree, as long as they can admit they were wrong and correct themselves quickly.

Also, I can certainly agree with the idea of MPs choosing to keep quiet, especially a Cabinet member choosing to bite his tongue so as to show a united front with the rest of Cabinet, bearing in mind he should still be free to vote his conscience too.

But still, each MP should be held accountable for how he votes, not on how the rest of his party votes.

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

If in doubt, I always interpret it as personal, since MPs will always vote against their party at times. Note the long gun registry and when life begins.

Call me naive if you wish but I dont think all of them are. Sure, there's a ton of them but there are also some who are pretty honest. Though if we are constantly electing liars I guess its our own fault for putting them there.

I agree. Problem is, the honest ones rarely make it to Parliament. I vote for character; the problem with that is that my candidate has never one yet, but I won't change. No point voting strategically for second-worst to keep the worst our. We see the results of that now.

 

[CDNBear]

I'm not so much into gotcha moments.

I am. Some of the most candid glimpses of what a person is all about comes out of gotchya moments.

When people are under pressure or cornered, you see the core of what they are come to the surface.

Enyone can say something stupid off the cuff at times and I can forgive that to a degree, as long as they can admit they were wrong and correct themselves quickly.

Or formulate an insincere apology and make excuses for letting their other face show though.

It's human nature, we see it on these pages all the time.

As I've pointed out and had thrown back at me many times, words are important.

Also, I can certainly agree with the idea of MPs choosing to keep quiet, especially a Cabinet member choosing to bite his tongue so as to show a united front with the rest of Cabinet, bearing in mind he should still be free to vote his conscience too.

I don't believe in whip votes.

All MP's should speak and vote their beliefs and conscience.

But that still reflects on the party.

The Party is still a sum of all it's parts.

But still, each MP should be held accountable for how he votes, not on how the rest of his party votes.

I agree and disagree.

If the best candidate in my riding belongs to a party that does not best represent my own positions, I will not facilitate the potential of that party gaining power.

Visa versa...

If the party that does best represent my positions contains to many idiots, I'm not going to facilitate the potential of giving them power.

Nothing is black and white.

 

[SLM]

I
I don't believe in whip votes.

All MP's should speak and vote their beliefs and conscience.

But that still reflects on the party.

The Party is still a sum of all it's parts.

I think further to that, if an MP's beliefs and conscience lies so far outside that of their parties that they need to be whipped, I'd question what they're doing representing that party in their constituency in the first place. And maybe they should be questioning that too.

But I don't like whip votes either. They should be banned as far as I'm concerned. If a party leader and the party platform doesn't have the confidence of it's own MP's, then how in the hell are we supposed to have confidence in it?

 

[Machjo]

I think further to that, if an MP's beliefs and conscience lies so far outside that of their parties that they need to be whipped, I'd question what they're doing representing that party in their constituency in the first place. And maybe they should be questioning that too.

But I don't like whip votes either. They should be banned as far as I'm concerned. If a party leader and the party platform doesn't have the confidence of it's own MP's, then how in the hell are we supposed to have confidence in it?

It's because few Canadians cote for the candidate,, most voting blindly for party. As a result, most candidates feel the pressure to pidgeon hole themselves into one party or another, Nunavut and some local elections being the exceptions since they're government systems are non-partisan.