Stephen Harper Loses Insider Oops!

Progressive Tory · January 15, 2009

"Newly minted Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has snagged a senior adviser right out from under Prime Minister Stephen Harper's nose.

"While secrecy oaths will prohibit him from divulging any confidential information in his new role in the Opposition leader's office, he will take with him an in-depth knowledge of the way government works. Of more particular interest to Liberals, he'll bring an insider's view of the Harper regime's style and operations."

This is going to be very interesting.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/01/14/...tieff-chan.html

Moonbox · January 15, 2009

I really don't think this is something to worry about at all. It's common knowledge how Harper's government works. I don't see how this is going to do ANYTHING but make Ignatieff look even more like Harper than he already does.

We've got two very pro-American leaders who have demonstrated VERY similar views on a good number of things and now one of these leaders is even hiring the other's staff.

Drea · January 15, 2009

So we can expect your vote to go to the Liberals then!

That's great!

Next to Trudeau, Iggy is probably the best thing that ever happened to the Liberal Party. He's not seen as a "lefty" and will more than likely take back a good many votes from Liberals who couldn't stand Dion, but wouldn't vote NDP, ever.

As well as conservatives who don't lean to the extreme right. That leaves Harper with only the "extremists" remaining as supporters.

Such good news for the majority of us who are centrists and don't want to be governed strictly by the far right or the far left.

Again... grrrrreat!

M.Dancer · January 15, 2009

Well I for one am happy that there will be someone in Ignatieff staff who knows how Gov't works.

Hopefully in the near future there will be at least 2 people...

Moonbox · January 15, 2009

So we can expect your vote to go to the Liberals then!
That's great!

Next to Trudeau, Iggy is probably the best thing that ever happened to the Liberal Party. He's not seen as a "lefty" and will more than likely take back a good many votes from Liberals who couldn't stand Dion, but wouldn't vote NDP, ever.

As well as conservatives who don't lean to the extreme right. That leaves Harper with only the "extremists" remaining as supporters.

Such good news for the majority of us who are centrists and don't want to be governed strictly by the far right or the far left.

Again... grrrrreat!

The Conservatives right now are about as centre as you can get. The Liberals shifted drastically left under Dion/Rae leadership and suffered for it. If Iggy can bring them back to the centre-right they may indeed have a chance. MOST Canadians vote right of centre, believe it or not. The question is how far right will they go and how many will stop voting Liberal the further left they go.

Progressive Tory · January 15, 2009

So we can expect your vote to go to the Liberals then!
That's great!

Next to Trudeau, Iggy is probably the best thing that ever happened to the Liberal Party. He's not seen as a "lefty" and will more than likely take back a good many votes from Liberals who couldn't stand Dion, but wouldn't vote NDP, ever.

As well as conservatives who don't lean to the extreme right. That leaves Harper with only the "extremists" remaining as supporters.

Such good news for the majority of us who are centrists and don't want to be governed strictly by the far right or the far left.

Again... grrrrreat!

There is definite proof of your views Drea. The Conservative character assassination of Dion resulted in complete annihilation. But where did the Liberal voters go who didn't like Dion? From 2006, the NDP was down by 72,662 (From 2,589,597 to 2,516,935); The Bloc was down by 175,568 (From 1,553,201 to 1,377,633) and the Conservative vote number dropped by 169,603 (From 5,374,071 to 5,204,468). Only the Green Party showed an increase of 276,616 (From 664,068 to 940,684)

Those who couldn't stop vommitting from the dreadful Karl Rove campaign style of the Conservatives, stayed home. The Cons did not inspire. They lost supporters from 2006. We had no Obama to rush us to the polls. Harper only showed that nobody running deserved the job. We now have OUR Obama in Michael Ignatieff, and when he says he doesn't care what the Tories call him, he means it.

McCain went through the whole Cons repertoire: 'Elitist', 'Socialist' and even 'Terrorist', but none of it worked.

Ignatieff is Harper's worst nightmare. He is centre in all matters that appeal to small 'c' Conservatives, or Red Tories; without the social conservative agenda of the CP. It's always been that, that has stopped a Harper Majority. On the other hand, Ignatieff is left in the things that do matter to Canadians. Women's Rights, Human Rights (remember he headed the Human Rights department at Harvard), Aboriginal Rights, etc.

We no longer have to choose between right and left; because he's in the centre. Canadians have found their star.

Moonbox · January 15, 2009

We now have OUR Obama in Michael Ignatieff, and when he says he doesn't care what the Tories call him, he means it.

Oh my god don't make me laugh any further. I'll bust a gut. On one hand you have a young (relatively) black American, a demographic which has NEVER handled the position of president. On the other hand you have an old fart of an ango-saxon university prof who lived the majority of his life outside of Canada.

On the one hand you have a president-elect with COMPLETELY different position on virtually EVERYTHING than the demon of George Bush, and on the Canadian side you have a Liberal Leader with virtually identical views on war, economics and international policy as the current prime minister.

A comparison of Obama to Ignatieff is about as apt as a comparison between Hilary Duff and Donald Trump. This is why the Liberals have such a problem creating buzz and excitement for their party. If people like you are making comparisons like this, you just reinforce the joke the party has become.

Ignatieff is Harper's worst nightmare. He is centre in all matters that appeal to small 'c' Conservatives, or Red Tories; without the social conservative agenda of the CP.

I'll agree that he's an intelligent shift to the right from Dion at least. It's the CPC's own fault for letting retarded fundamental christians into the leadership. You're also right in that it'll probably cost them votes and possibly an election.

On the other hand, Ignatieff is left in the things that do matter to Canadians. Women's Rights, Human Rights (remember he headed the Human Rights department at Harvard), Aboriginal Rights, etc.

or that he endorses torture in interrogation? Or did...until someone made a big deal over him being quoted as saying such???

Ignatieff is as right as they come. He's as much American as he is Canadian and an American Democrat makes a CPC right winger look like a communist.

Personally, I'm not worried. I'm all for lower government spending and lower taxes.

August1991 · January 15, 2009

This is going to be very interesting.

Interesting?

From the CBC link in the OP:

Sources confirmed late Tuesday that Kevin Chan, executive assistant and director to top federal bureaucrat Kevin Lynch, has joined Ignatieff's team.
As clerk of the Privy Council Office, Lynch directly advises the prime minister on policy, administrative and political matters. He is the link between the Prime Minister's Office and the deputy ministers who run each government department.

IOW, Chan is a career civil servant and is not someone hired by the Prime Minister to work in the PMO. What this shows, if anything, is that some Ottawa bureaucrats are left-leaning or Liberal.

PT, you seemed confused about the PCO and the PMO. At least get your basic facts right before you launch into your various diatribes and rants.

Progressive Tory · January 15, 2009

Interesting?
From the CBC link in the OP:

IOW, Chan is a career civil servant and is not someone hired by the Prime Minister to work in the PMO. What this shows, if anything, is that some Ottawa bureaucrats are left-leaning or Liberal.

PT, you seemed confused about the PCO and the PMO. At least get your basic facts right before you launch into your various diatribes and rants.

I do know that difference and highlighted "Of more particular interest to Liberals, he'll bring an insider's view of the Harper regime's style and operations."

This is merely from a tactical perspective. Didn't know I ranted.

As to comparing Obama and Ignatieff, I only meant that the Conservative campaign may have slaughtered DION but did nothing to raise their own status. They were down almost 170,000 votes and A RECORD NUMBER OF VOTERS STAYED HOME! That's nothing to brag about.

However, Obama's intellect and steady 'this is who I am', avoiding the mud and the muck; inspired Americans who now felt that they had a viable option. Canadians now have a viable option. It will be a different campaign next election, and this could very well bring us back to the polls - the only thing that really works in a Democracy.

Moonbox · January 15, 2009

People are hugely mistaken on a few very important things about the Obama campaign. Personally I would have voted for him. With that said only a complete buffoon could have lost the election against the Republicans after Bush.

Obama didn't have to sling mud. Republicans had already dived head first into the mud and were covered in it of their own accord. All Obama had to do is say, "We're not going to be like THEM" and he was a shoe-in. It certainly helped that he was charismatic and opposed the war in Iraq. All Obama had to do in the election was stand back, watch Sarah Palin self-destruct on television and make sure he didn't land himself in scandal.

Progressive Tory · January 15, 2009

People are hugely mistaken on a few very important things about the Obama campaign. Personally I would have voted for him. With that said only a complete buffoon could have lost the election against the Republicans after Bush.
Obama didn't have to sling mud. Republicans had already dived head first into the mud and were covered in it of their own accord. All Obama had to do is say, "We're not going to be like THEM" and he was a shoe-in. It certainly helped that he was charismatic and opposed the war in Iraq. All Obama had to do in the election was stand back, watch Sarah Palin self-destruct on television and make sure he didn't land himself in scandal.

With that said only a complete buffoon could have lost the election against the Republicans after Bush. Not necessarily. The Republicans still did quite well under the circumstances. What Obama brought to the table was some excitement, but perhaps more importantly, hope.

The last Canadian election was almost hope LESS. The Conservatives ran a brilliant attack ad campaign, which should have assured an overwheming number of voters, that they were the best party. If Harper couldn't do that last election, he just can't get it done. 170,000 voters who cast their ballots for him in 2006, voted for someone else in 2008, despite the fact that Dion wasn't even a threat. Those are the numbers he needs to look at, especially if vote-splitting is off the table next election.

However, my intent with this topic, was to bring forth a story of interest to those who follow federal politics. Reporters from several newspapers covered it, so I thought it might induce some discussion or debate. The story begins:

"Newly minted Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has snagged a senior adviser right out from under Prime Minister Stephen Harper's nose."

I hoped to hear whether or not you thought it might make difference...should it cause the Conservatives any concern or give the opposition an inside track? Why, why not? Mr. Chan can't discuss government secrets, but could help with strategies for the next election.

punked · January 15, 2009

With that said only a complete buffoon could have lost the election against the Republicans after Bush. Not necessarily. The Republicans still did quite well under the circumstances. What Obama brought to the table was some excitement, but perhaps more importantly, hope.
The last Canadian election was almost hope LESS. The Conservatives ran a brilliant attack ad campaign, which should have assured an overwheming number of voters, that they were the best party. If Harper couldn't do that last election, he just can't get it done. 170,000 voters who cast their ballots for him in 2006, voted for someone else in 2008, despite the fact that Dion wasn't even a threat. Those are the numbers he needs to look at, especially if vote-splitting is off the table next election.

However, my intent with this topic, was to bring forth a story of interest to those who follow federal politics. Reporters from several newspapers covered it, so I thought it might induce some discussion or debate. The story begins:

"Newly minted Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has snagged a senior adviser right out from under Prime Minister Stephen Harper's nose."

I hoped to hear whether or not you thought it might make difference...should it cause the Conservatives any concern or give the opposition an inside track? Why, why not? Mr. Chan can't discuss government secrets, but could help with strategies for the next election.

Attacks rarely attract voters what they do is make them not show up. The lower the turn out the better it is for the Cons in almost all cases which is why the attack.

Progressive Tory · January 15, 2009

Attacks rarely attract voters what they do is make them not show up. The lower the turn out the better it is for the Cons in almost all cases which is why the attack.

That's rather sad and extremely undemocratic. So do you think it's better for Canadians if one Party makes an election so dirty that the majority of voters stay home...just so they can win? Hmmm.

However, that only works when there's no alternative. The Conservatives have proven that Canadians have no appetite for Karl Rove campaigning. If Ignatieff is smart, and we know that he is, he won't get sucked into the madness, showing a calmer gentler leader who's resume is mind boggling.

punked · January 15, 2009

That's rather sad and extremely undemocratic. So do you think it's better for Canadians if one Party makes an election so dirty that the majority of voters stay home...just so they can win? Hmmm.
However, that only works when there's no alternative. The Conservatives have proven that Canadians have no appetite for Karl Rove campaigning. If Ignatieff is smart, and we know that he is, he won't get sucked into the madness, showing a calmer gentler leader who's resume is mind boggling.

I am just saying it is known that negative and attack adds suppress voter turn out and that is good for the Cons because they are the only ones who run a real GOTV effort.

Alta4ever · January 16, 2009

He is centre in all matters that appeal to small 'c' Conservatives, or Red Tories; without the social

You do realise their is a big difference between small c conservatives and red tories right?

punked · January 16, 2009

You do realise their is a big difference between small c conservatives and red tories right?

Agreed Small c Conservatives are more like Reform Party/Canadian Alliance, and Red Tories are more like Iggy. He might get some small c's but I doubt a lot.

Smallc · January 16, 2009

Yes, that's why my choice of name on here was so terrible.

Alta4ever · January 16, 2009

Agreed Small c Conservatives are more like Reform Party/Canadian Alliance, and Red Tories are more like Iggy. He might get some small c's but I doubt a lot.

I am small c and I wouldn't vote for Iggy. He will get the sympathetic left, but will do nothing about the vote numbers in Alberta, after the coalition crap I doubt the NDP will keep that seat and the liberals will have affermed to another generation of Albertans why we don't vote liberal. It will be a very long time before this province sees another red seat.

Alta4ever · January 16, 2009

Mulroony was a Red tory.

Progressive Tory · January 16, 2009

I am small c and I wouldn't vote for Iggy. He will get the sympathetic left, but will do nothing about the vote numbers in Alberta, after the coalition crap I doubt the NDP will keep that seat and the liberals will have affermed to another generation of Albertans why we don't vote liberal. It will be a very long time before this province sees another red seat.

The only 'Coalition Crap' was the recent Conservative attack on national unity. By now most people know it was hypocritical, since the recent coalition was only the NDP and Liberals, with Bloc support; while in 2004; Harper's Coalition included the Bloc ('separatists'). If he had been successful in 2004, and was able to overturn the results of the 2004 election at the throne speech, grabbing power not earned by the voters; would Alberta have been in support of it? I mean it was a deal with 'socialists' and 'separatists'. Egads!

Just curious.

Alta4ever · January 16, 2009

The only 'Coalition Crap' was the recent Conservative attack on national unity. By now most people know it was hypocritical, since the recent coalition was only the NDP and Liberals, with Bloc support; while in 2004; Harper's Coalition included the Bloc ('separatists'). If he had been successful in 2004, and was able to overturn the results of the 2004 election at the throne speech, grabbing power not earned by the voters; would Alberta have been in support of it? I mean it was a deal with 'socialists' and 'separatists'. Egads!
Just curious.

So elimanting a portion of the political welfare was an attack on national unity. I'm not sure what world you live in.... Very few Albertans would have supported a CPC/NDP/bloc coalition. No mutual support contract was ever signed was there? There was no attack on national unity I am not sure where you get this from. Government had not even sat yet in the house the coalition was dreamed up right after election. Any national unity crisis that you may be talking about was all the seperatism talk in the west that ensued once the coalition was disclosed to us.

Alta4ever · January 16, 2009

So PT were you ever a Joe clark, Mulrooney, or Jean Charest suppporter?

Shakeyhands · January 16, 2009

So elimanting a portion of the political welfare was an attack on national unity. I'm not sure what world you live in.... Very few Albertans would have supported a CPC/NDP/bloc coalition. No mutual support contract was ever signed was there? There was no attack on national unity I am not sure where you get this from. Government had not even sat yet in the house the coalition was dreamed up right after election. Any national unity crisis that you may be talking about was all the seperatism talk in the west that ensued once the coalition was disclosed to us.

hilarious... $1.75 for the party that YOU voted for. If you don't want the party of your choice getting your $1.75.. DON'T VOTE.

Lord you people are dishonest.

Oleg Bach · January 16, 2009

"Newly minted Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has snagged a senior adviser right out from under Prime Minister Stephen Harper's nose.
"While secrecy oaths will prohibit him from divulging any confidential information in his new role in the Opposition leader's office, he will take with him an in-depth knowledge of the way government works. Of more particular interest to Liberals, he'll bring an insider's view of the Harper regime's style and operations."

This is going to be very interesting.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/01/14/...tieff-chan.html

Maybe Harper should have been more loving and he would have generated loyalty. If a leader does not love his flock and is cold - that sheep with all the inside info will simply wander off and leave looking for trust and affection in another - much like a neglected wife or husband - Harpers' coldness is not paying off - power is not about domination and intimidation - it is about respect and the fair empowerment of others...Power is the giving of power. Apparently Steve was cheap with his heart.

Alta4ever · January 16, 2009

hilarious... $1.75 for the party that YOU voted for. If you don't want the party of your choice getting your $1.75.. DON'T VOTE.
Lord you people are dishonest.

How is what I said dishonest? Sorry but that 30 million that goes to the parties can be better spent on healthcare, policing, or some other program. Political parties are just leaches on the taxpayer.