News   Nov 01, 2024
Toronto’s Bike Lane Feud at an All-Time High
 2.2K     14 
News   Nov 01, 2024
Bayview Village Resubmission More Than Doubles Height Near Bessarion Station
 2.6K     3 
News   Nov 01, 2024
Drone Flight Captures Cladding Progress at Menkes' Maison 77 Clarendon
 794     0 

Ignatieff hires ex-Chrétien PR man as chief of staff

CodeMonkey

CodeMonkey

Active Member
Member Bio
Joined
May 27, 2009
Messages
669
Reaction score
38
Location
Greater Toronto Area
CBC said:
Michael Ignatieff has hired veteran political strategist Peter Donolo to take over as the Liberal leader's chief of staff, CBC News has learned.

Donolo, who will be leaving his post at the Strategic Counsel, a Toronto polling firm, will replace Ian Davey, a longtime Ignatieff supporter.

Donolo was a communications director for former Liberal prime minister Jean Chrétien.

"Peter will be given carte blanche to clean house and do whatever he needs to do," one source, who asked not to be identified, told CBC News.

Sources also say the party's next director of communications will be a francophone.

The changes come as Liberals continue to struggle in the polls and recover from the fallout over the internal dispute over who should get the party nomination in the Quebec riding of Outremont.


Denis Coderre, Ignatieff's former Quebec lieutenant, left his post over the dispute and accused Ignatieff of listening to advisers in Toronto who "know nothing about Quebec." Ignatieff had initially supported Coderre's choice of Nathalie Le Prohon for the riding but then changed his mind and cleared the way for former cabinet minister Martin Cauchon, whom Coderre opposed, to get the nomination
Click to expand...


Interesting development; Anyone think this will help or hurt Iggy chances of becoming PM?
 
Hey, Chrétien was the Liberal party's last hoorah before our liberal country somehow ended up with an ultra right wing PM. Ignatieff is wise to get Chrétien's team leader on board.
 
Part of me wonders if Iggy's situation is similar to Harper's in the early part of the decade, when the very thought of him ever being Prime Minister seemed faintly ridiculous. The Harper who couldn't control the social conservative wing of the party and didn't seem to be making any significant ground even against a Liberal party who admittedly had stolen taxpayer money.

Harper's strength is not his personality (Despite his hockey-dad-with-a-kitten routine, I don't think the average Canadian would describe him as particularly warm or likeable) or his policies (He's become an incredible pragmatist, giving up on many of his own political convictions - The Harper of the late 90s would call today's Harper a traitor to conservatism), but rather his ability to play the strategic game that is politics very very well. The Conservative Party has not had a major strategic misstep in years, and they absolutely own the discourse in Ottawa, making the Liberals look like whiners who are just standing in the way of getting important work done.

The Liberal party absolutely sucks at playing the game right now, but if Ignatieff can get it together with a new Chief of Staff, anything can happen.
 
No surprise about Harper as you describe him. In the early days many of us suspected that he was strategically walking a fine line in terms of tacitly supporting more extreme right minority factions while really trying to broaden the platform and appeal to more centrist conservatives. Even an idiot knows that you don't get power in Canada with an extremist platform. The liberals in power, in concert with the state and socialist media, focused solely on half the picture, preferring somewhat disingenuously to paint Harper as an extremist who would persecute minorities and destroy social programs. This viewpoint as carefully constructed and massaged by government spin still persists, though waning:

MetroMan said:
Hey, Chrétien was the Liberal party's last hoorah before our liberal country somehow ended up with an ultra right wing PM. Ignatieff is wise to get Chrétien's team leader on board.
Click to expand...

Most average Canadians without partisan leanings understand that Harper is in no way the boogey man he was portrayed as being. He honoured his promise of a vote on gay marriage, knowing it was a done deal, and backed off it forevermore. Gay marriage didn't destroy the nation and neither have Harper governments, but the liberals dug their own grave by losing credibility in the eyes of Canadians by clinging to this increasingly hollow rhetoric.

... and this is from the liberal Star:

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/719021
 
Tewder said:
No surprise about Harper as you describe him. In the early days many of us suspected that he was strategically walking a fine line in terms of tacitly supporting more extreme right minority factions while really trying to broaden the platform and appeal to more centrist conservatives.
Even an idiot knows that you don't get power in Canada with an extremist platform. The liberals in power, in concert with the state and socialist media, focused solely on half the picture, preferring somewhat disingenuously to paint Harper as an extremist who would persecute minorities and destroy social programs. This viewpoint as carefully constructed and massaged by government spin still persists, though waninghttp://www.thestar.com/comment/article/719021
Click to expand...


You have to remember Harper political career was first based on revenge over N.E.P. not political ideologues. He also seems to be all over the board when it comes to trying to peg him with any ideology, I don't think you can call him a conservative, centrist or liberal. However his polices seem to be developed to keep both the former Canadian Alliance and PC members happy.
 
Harper also headed the secretive and ultraconservative National Citizens Coalition. During his time there, he said some pretty radical things. I don't think it was at all unreasonable to be suspicious of him.
 
afransen said:
Harper also headed the secretive and ultraconservative National Citizens Coalition. During his time there, he said some pretty radical things. I don't think it was at all unreasonable to be suspicious of him.
Click to expand...

...yet the Liberals have a tough time when the same tactics are directed their way. Now that their candidates are being painted, it's unfair? If Harper deserved to be called "scary", Dion deserved to be labelled an egghead with no leadership abilities and Iggy deserves to be labelled as a lofty academic lacking empathy with the common man. Of course, who they are in reality is often far from what they're opponents paint them as. Voters should stick to judging them on their promises and/or their record in office, not on what they said a decade before they assumed public office. Can you imagine Trudeau (or about half our PMs) getting elected if we used that bar back then?
 
Yes, wasn't Trudeau a nazi sympathizer? LOL! There is a double-standard among partisans, to be expected, but again I think the average Canadian looks beyond the rhetoric and arrives at a more reasonable perception. I'm not here to defend Harper, he gets on my nerves no end but I think this one-party system in Toronto along with powerful minority interest groups are really starting to harm the city. We need more balanced discourse and political parties need to be made to fight for votes here. There are many votes to be had and we might just start to see promises and funds coming our way for subways and so on...
 
The latest cheque scandal is proof that the Liberals just don't get it. I wonder what brilliant strategist figured that the best way to win more ridings is to complain that the ones you are trying to win got too much and the ones that you have got too little?

That's not to say what the Conservatives did was not reprehensible. But even if they slapped on a maple leaf instead of a conservative logo on cheque it would have scarcely made a difference. I've been to events in my Liberal held riding where the 'government' is paying for something but the event is a Liberal love fest and a 'Government of Canada' event in all but name only. That's reason this scandal didn't get legs. They all do it. And it's condoned. Why else do we allow MPs to hand deliver cheques in the first place? Why not just mail it or even better direct deposit?

What the Liberals really don't understand is that for Joe Public, at least this government is blowing money on him instead of handing it out to special interest groups. Complaining that the government is spending too much on the common man is not going to win the Liberals any votes.

As much I like Iggy and I wish him well, I am starting to wonder if the people around him have any common sense at all. If the best you can do is complain about which logo is on a cheque, you shouldn't expect to form government any time soon.
 
What do you think of the Economic Action Plan website being plastered with images of Harper, referring to the Government of Canada as "the Harper government" (which is illegal)?

I don't see much point in commenting on the smears that each side launches at each other. I am more interested in the pattern of behaviour. Harper has shown no hesitation in doing exactly the opposite of what he claimed he would do. As such, I don't put much stock in his promises. But, I don't doubt that he would use a majority to enact several pieces of legislation that I would find abhorrent, besides being just plain stupid. It's not a risk I'm willing to take.
 
afransen said:
What do you think of the Economic Action Plan website being plastered with images of Harper, referring to the Government of Canada as "the Harper government" (which is illegal)?

I don't see much point in commenting on the smears that each side launches at each other. I am more interested in the pattern of behaviour. Harper has shown no hesitation in doing exactly the opposite of what he claimed he would do. As such, I don't put much stock in his promises. But, I don't doubt that he would use a majority to enact several pieces of legislation that I would find abhorrent, besides being just plain stupid. It's not a risk I'm willing to take.
Click to expand...

That's fine. And for the most part I agree with you. However, I am not willing to accept hypocrisy from Liberals who cry 'unfair' now that the shoe is on the other foot.

I am fairly sure for most conservatives, there was probably some legislation under previous Liberal governments that they found abhorrent. To now argue that the Conservatives should not implement their plans when they have their turn at the till, just because Liberals might find it abhorrent, is hypocrisy....and poor practice for a democracy. You've had your turn. Now stand aside and let the next guy work. If he screws up and get's fired, you'll get your turn.
 
You must log in or register to post here.

Back
Top