Federal Election Thread

[NLengr]

Turns out the Conservative estimate on the F-35 cost is way off. $148 million per copy, not the $75 million per copy. To quote a the Centre for Defence Information in Washington

 

"nobody on this earth is going to end up paying $75 million per jet by the time the planes, currently in production, are fully tested and developed. The cost will be more in the neighbourhood of $148 million"

 

They also are the most recent group to state the F-35 has huge performance issues compared to it's advertised capabilities:

 

"You're getting an under performing airplane for a huge amount of money,"

 

Can we get a competitive fly off already? Buying these without sober second thought (Cons) is a terrible idea. The Cons need to suck it up, admit that the aircraft isn't what we originally signed up for and announce support for a competitive fly off of available fighter aircraft.

 

Seriously, we could buy Eurofighter Typhoon's for roughly $123 million a copy, have a great aircraft with twin engines (originally a huge concern when we bought the F-18's, which we are now ignoring) and then invest the savings of 1.6 billion dollars saved into healthcare, social programs, infrastructure, tax cuts etc. Or if we really wanted to, we could buy Rafale's at a cost of $82.3 million a copy.

 

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/04/05/pol-fighter-jet-cost.html

[blind_synergy]

Very interesting story in the G&M this morning:

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/corporate-tax-cuts-dont-spur-growth-analysis-reveals-as-election-pledges-fly/article1972599/

 

More evidence supply-side economics is bogus (like we needed more, though).

[MarathonRunner]

Are you an air force general, or serving in the air force? Are you a defence analyst, or otherwise working in the military or air force? So do you truly know what Canada's requirements are in a next-generation plane?

 

Even my friends who are still in the army don't know what Canada wants/needs in a fighter jet, but those who are serving in the air force do.

 

At this point in time, according to the people I know in NDHQ, having a tendering process for a new figher jet would do nothing but waste tons and tons of money. There aren't a lot of options out there for next-gen fighter planes, and those who know what Canada needs have determined that the F-35 is that plane. Now I don't pretend to know if it is the right plane or not, but I am willing to listen to the experts.

 

You also have to realize that the Americans quoting the larger numbers for the planes are including all the maintenance, etc. costs, that Canada's planes aren't going to have attached to the initial price tag, because all of that "extra" stuff is going to be done in Canada, giving jobs to Canada's aerospace industry. Now I don't pretend that the price is necessarily going to be as low as that quoted by the Conservatives, but I also know it is not going to be anywhere near as high as the Americans are saying, because they are including a lot of the costs that, for us, aren't tied into buying the planes themselves, but will be spread out over the first several years of the lifespan of the plane, for repair and maintenance, in Canada. At least that's how my buddies who are still in the Forces explained things to me, and I have no reason not to trust them.

 

Turns out the Conservative estimate on the F-35 cost is way off. $148 million per copy, not the $75 million per copy. To quote a the Centre for Defence Information in Washington

 

"nobody on this earth is going to end up paying $75 million per jet by the time the planes, currently in production, are fully tested and developed. The cost will be more in the neighbourhood of $148 million"

[NLengr]

You know what will waste even more money then a competitive fly off? Buying 65 fighter aircraft that the cost of hundreds of millions of dollars each without knowing if they can do the job for which we are purchasing them. This is still an aircraft in development, not a final product.

 

Second point: when we bought on as a level three partner in the 90's to the JSF project, a certain level of performance at a given price (much less than the more capable f-22) was expected. There are now serious doubts about the ability of the f-35 to deliver on the promise both with respect to cost and performance. Multiple nations militaries have questioned the f-35's survivability when facing modern 4.5 and 5th gen adversaries, both from a dogfighting aspect, as well as from an airspace denial aspect. Air to ground missions such as close air support are also questioned.

 

Look, nobody is saying that the F-35 is the wrong aircraft. What people are asking for is a competitive bidding process given the fact that the f-35 is not meeting it's performance or cost goals. We owe it to the country to explore ALL possible options before we commit to spending such a large amount of money.

 

Also I would add that, even if we are excluding some of the costs because the work will occur in Canada, that's still money that needs to be spent. It may create jobs and put some money back into the economy but it's not like we save it all.

[NLengr]

http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/03/21/AW_03_21_2011_p27-297530.xml&headline=null&prev=10

 

Little bit of info on the similar problems and questions being raised worldwide.

[NLengr]

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/

 

This article does a nice job describing concerns about the f-35's capability to A: win battles as part of a large multiaircraft unit B: avoid detection either by radar or infared systems C: Dogfight.

[larva]

Are you an air force general, or serving in the air force? Are you a defence analyst, or otherwise working in the military or air force? So do you truly know what Canada's requirements are in a next-generation plane?

 

Even my friends who are still in the army don't know what Canada wants/needs in a fighter jet, but those who are serving in the air force do.

 

At this point in time, according to the people I know in NDHQ, having a tendering process for a new figher jet would do nothing but waste tons and tons of money. There aren't a lot of options out there for next-gen fighter planes, and those who know what Canada needs have determined that the F-35 is that plane. Now I don't pretend to know if it is the right plane or not, but I am willing to listen to the experts.

 

You also have to realize that the Americans quoting the larger numbers for the planes are including all the maintenance, etc. costs, that Canada's planes aren't going to have attached to the initial price tag, because all of that "extra" stuff is going to be done in Canada, giving jobs to Canada's aerospace industry. Now I don't pretend that the price is necessarily going to be as low as that quoted by the Conservatives, but I also know it is not going to be anywhere near as high as the Americans are saying, because they are including a lot of the costs that, for us, aren't tied into buying the planes themselves, but will be spread out over the first several years of the lifespan of the plane, for repair and maintenance, in Canada. At least that's how my buddies who are still in the Forces explained things to me, and I have no reason not to trust them.

 

 

The F-35 project is in shambles, and if the government actually thinks that our measly order of 65 jets will help prop it up they are wrong.

 

I have a vested interest in wanting the best equipment for myself and my friends, but I'm also a tax-paying Canadian, and there is no way I would ever support this decision. As an army person, I find it hard to believe that you think this purchase is a good idea. The army gets used and abused by the government time and time again, and their operations and deployments make the F-18's trips to Kosovo and now Libya look like picnics. If anything, we should send more money to the army to help them rebuild post-afghanistan.

 

Every year, our fighter jet program is by far the greatest expenditure of the military, yet their role has been substantially diminished post cold-war. All of this needs to be factored into a decision on what we will purchase in the future.

[mdDave]

http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/The-F-35s-Air-to-Air-Capability-Controversy-05089/

 

This article does a nice job describing concerns about the f-35's capability to A: win battles as part of a large multiaircraft unit B: avoid detection either by radar or infared systems C: Dogfight.

 

Should we get more expensive and better ones?

[larva]

Should we get more expensive and better ones?

 

I think the argument would be that we can get better and LESS expensive ones.

[NLengr]

Has anyone considered the possibility that like many military and government contracts the idea is to spend as much money as possible? Military contracts in Canada always have the caveat that as much money as possible goes back into the Canadian economy. If we don’t buy these things then we don’t get parts contracts, or spin of technologies and patents. There is much more to it then what is the best fighter on the market at the best price. This isn’t your dad buying a used car, this is an attempt at trying to keep Canada in the advanced avionics game, which let’s face it a country as small as ours can’t play without help. Personally I don’t care what we end up buying since most of the tech bonuses will end up helping quebec based companies which is the case with most military projects. Makes you wonder why they are so anti-military.

 

It's not like if we buy a different fighter after a fly off we wouldn't get contracts. It'll be the same deal. If we buy your fighters, we want contracts.

[Erk]

Jeez. The more of this stuff goes on, the more baffled I become that anyone could ever conceivably vote conservative. It makes me sad for the general brainpower of our nation.

[MarathonRunner]

Jeez. The more of this stuff goes on, the more baffled I become that anyone could ever conceivably vote conservative. It makes me sad for the general brainpower of our nation.

 

Gee, way to generalize. Some people have very good reasons for voting conservative. That doesn't mean they are lower in brainpower, that just means that their priorities are different from yours. I question *your* brainpower when you tar all people who vote conservative with the same brush.

 

For example, as I am ex-military, I prefer to vote for a party that supports the members of the Canadian Forces and provides adequate equipment for them, as opposed to a party that does nothing but cut funding to the military and send our men and women overseas on missions with inadequate equipment, old equipment, or simply the wrong kit.

 

Also, having lived in Europe where there is a mix of private and public health care, I have seen first hand that a mix of public and private, where everyone is covered by the government, but where private insurance also exists, seems to function much better (at least from a patient point of view) than Canada's completely public system. I never had to wait more than 48 hours for a diagnostic tests (MRI, CT scan) or to see a specialist in Europe, whereas here in Canada I've had to wait over 6 months for the same services.

 

I certainly do not agree with everything that the conservatives stand for - I disagree completely with them on many issues (ie. marriage - I fully support same-sex marriages for example). But for me, they are the best of a bunch of bad choices. That doesn't mean I'm lacking in brainpower - quite the contrary (I graduated at the top of my class from my undergraduate program).

[Erk]

Some people have very good reasons for voting conservative.

Apologies for offensive language earlier, federal elections leave me testy and frustrated with the world.

 

I do see where you are coming from on military issues, but I find it very hard to imagine military being a top priority. I have a military family and was in Cadets for a quarter of my life, so it does frustrate me to see it decay, but is it really of central importance, over things like education and infrastructure?

 

More importantly and completely regardless of the platform they claim, "increased spending" from the cons comes with huge tax cuts in our most lucrative taxation groups (the wealthy and corporations), driving us deeper into a deficit we're already struggling with. It baffles me that a party claiming economic conservativism would be so blind to economics; I've always been generally on the conservative side fiscally, which is part of why I'm so disgusted with their party. The questionable economic growth from industry tax cuts is not even remotely sufficient to replace the lost taxes, which come with job creation through investment in government programs. Cons will fail to support the military (and everything else they want to pay for) because they will fail to support the economy as a whole. This is already the case with their spending record: they are the most expensive government we've ever had. How long can we support that?

original report and cbc article.

 

There's plenty of other reasons not to vote conservative even if you are conservative, but I'm on the verge of ranting again so I'm going to go eat some raisins and chill.

[jordynbreanne]

I certainly do not agree with everything that the conservatives stand for - I disagree completely with them on many issues (ie. marriage - I fully support same-sex marriages for example). But for me, they are the best of a bunch of bad choices.

 

I would just like to point out the the Conservative Party is NOT against same-sex marriages. There may be conservatives within the party who are, but the party itself is not. I know a great number of homosexual individuals who work for the CPC.

 

I realize this is contrary to common thought, and to the CBC Voter Compass quiz (which was made by a Liberal and is not fully accurate, although useful in many respects).

[ParkourParkour]

I would just like to point out the the Conservative Party is NOT against same-sex marriages. There may be conservatives within the party who are, but the party itself is not. I know a great number of homosexual individuals who work for the CPC.

 

I realize this is contrary to common thought, and to the CBC Voter Compass quiz (which was made by a Liberal and is not fully accurate, although useful in many respects).

 

Stephen Harper supports same-sex unions but not same-sex marriage. This has been on the record many times at various "family-focused" rallies from his own mouth.

 

Furthermore, I do believe the actions of the Harper cabinet, especially when it comes to the example of the Citizenship Minister omitting any reference to gay couples/opportunities for gay immigrants in citizenship guides for brand new immigrants, clearly demonstrates the policy subtext this government is running under.

 

When the leadership of the party (directly from the actual leader as well as his cabinet) have these views on this issue, then it's clear what the unspoken de facto policies of the Conservatives are.

 

I am quite passionate in defending and upholding all rights for all Canadians (gay, transsexual, straight, etc.) and just wanted to make sure that this was clarified.

 

Source: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20110314/citizenship-guide-110314/

[larva]

I disagree with the assertion that the Conservatives are the best party for the military.

 

They definitely agree with (ab)using the military (they supported us joining the now disastrous mission in Iraq) but they do little for military members. They have repeatedly denied our injured veterans the benefits they deserve, and when we finally had a leader (Ombudsman Pat Stogran) who spoke up about it, he got fired.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/08/19/f-veterans-anger.html

 

If you plan on having a strong military, or even a functioning one, that deploys all over the world in offensive operations, then be ready to take care of them when they come home broken.

[MarathonRunner]

I disagree with the assertion that the Conservatives are the best party for the military.

 

They definitely agree with (ab)using the military (they supported us joining the now disastrous mission in Iraq) but they do little for military members. They have repeatedly denied our injured veterans the benefits they deserve, and when we finally had a leader (Ombudsman Pat Stogran) who spoke up about it, he got fired.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/08/19/f-veterans-anger.html

 

If you plan on having a strong military, or even a functioning one, that deploys all over the world in offensive operations, then be ready to take care of them when they come home broken.

 

Unfortunately, none of the parties has ever treated veterans well. When I was serving, I knew plenty of people were served when the liberals were in power (the Chretien years), and according to them, vets were treated just as bad, if not worse, at that time. At least now, guys and gals who lose limbs are still kept on strength when possible - they try to find jobs for them on base, or even in their units. Whereas under the liberals, they were immediately released, since they weren't deployable. And with all the cut-backs the liberals had made to the military, you had to be deployable, or you were out. At least now, if you can't deploy for one reason or another, it doesn't mean you are automatically out of the Forces.

 

The conservatives definitely don't treat the military, or veterans, as well as they should, but no party has or does. At least, under the conservatives, we haven't been sending people in to Afghanistan with bloody green combats. Thank goodness our men and women serving over there have proper desert CADPAT, and don't have to try to jury-rig something, like they did when the liberals were in power. The conservatives have also sent our engineers over with proper engineer tanks (leased and then bought from the Germans since we didn't have any left as when the liberals were in power they got rid of them and wouldn't fork out for new ones).

 

I'm not saying the conservatives treat the military well, but they certainly treat them better than the liberals did. At least in my experience, and the experience of many of the officers, soldiers and NCOs I know who lived through the dark days of the liberal downsizing and aging equipment, when they were constantly being asked to do more with the wrong equipment, and with kit that was way past its prime. But your experiences may have been different, and I can respect that.

[NLengr]

Not that any of this debating matters anyway.

 

From the progress of the campaign so far, we're just gonna end up with another minority Conservative govt, probably slightly smaller in size. Barring a MAJOR blunder from the Cons or the Liberals, we're not gonna move much more in the polls.

 

The conservatives have run a terrible campaign. It's been dogged with scandal and problems from the beginning. The Liberals have done better, but still not good enough to truly capitalize on the Conservative blunders. The NDP will do the same as they always do since they haven't really made any headway into areas/groups that aren't their traditional supporters. And the Bloc can't form a govt. anyway.

 

The outcome of the election will be another 3 years, just like the last 3 years. The only difference is leaders. Harper will probably be turfed. He will have failed to win a majority on 3 separate tries. The Cons will realize he's a dead horse. They will choose a new leader with more public appeal. Iggy will probably stay for another election as leader. Layton will be gone due the health reasons. Gilles will retire.

[Erk]

Not that any of this debating matters anyway.

 

From the progress of the campaign so far, we're just gonna end up with another minority Conservative govt, probably slightly smaller in size. Barring a MAJOR blunder from the Cons or the Liberals, we're not gonna move much more in the polls.

 

I pray that you're right about this, particularly a con minority and harper being turfed. I don't think the cons are going to improve much, but I can't see that megalomaniac helping them to moderation.

 

Sadly and strangely, cons are rising in popularity polls the more of their crap is aired. I don't keep a lot of stock in those, but it is disheartening nonetheless.

 

What Canada needs during the next brief intermission between minority governments is electoral reform. First past the post has been failing us drastically for the last decade. It's time to change. Even Alternative Voting would solve this problem; Proportional Representation would blow it out of the water.

 

Anyone want to go activist with me after the election? Regardless of your political leanings, electoral reform would lead to a Canada with a stronger government where everyone's voices were heard, even if those voices disagree.

[Erk]

I'm not saying the conservatives treat the military well, but they certainly treat them better than the liberals did. At least in my experience, and the experience of many of the officers, soldiers and NCOs I know who lived through the dark days of the liberal downsizing and aging equipment, when they were constantly being asked to do more with the wrong equipment, and with kit that was way past its prime. But your experiences may have been different, and I can respect that.

 

Once again, regardless of whether it's true (military issues not being at the forefront of my research), I find it really sad that this would be a deciding factor for you over things like emissions control (cons have destroyed it utterly), scientific funding (also wiped out), nuclear safety (remember that Keen? Her firing was big in the news a while back), allowance of pesticide in our food (mmm vegetables), massive misspending (mmm contempt), open and concealed lies (5 questions a day? What can't they tell us?), and bald-faced hypocrisy (coalitions got Harper into power).

 

It's your right to vote how you will, of course, but you haven't swayed my depression regarding those who want to vote conservative in the slightest, if the military is more important to you than everything the cons have destroyed.

[mdDave]

Once again, regardless of whether it's true (military issues not being at the forefront of my research), I find it really sad that this would be a deciding factor for you over things like emissions control (cons have destroyed it utterly), scientific funding (also wiped out), nuclear safety (remember that Keen? Her firing was big in the news a while back), allowance of pesticide in our food (mmm vegetables), massive misspending (mmm contempt), open and concealed lies (5 questions a day? What can't they tell us?), and bald-faced hypocrisy (coalitions got Harper into power).

 

It's your right to vote how you will, of course, but you haven't swayed my depression regarding those who want to vote conservative in the slightest, if the military is more important to you than everything the cons have destroyed.

 

that is pretty horrendous

can you show me a source that says conservatives want to reduce science funding to 0?

[NLengr]

that is pretty horrendous

can you show me a source that says conservatives want to reduce science funding to 0?

 

You know as well as everyone else that he/she meant greatly reduced funding, not reducing it to zero. I'll let you guys argue the points about funding but your response was ridiculous enough that you needed to be called out on it.

[Erk]

that is pretty horrendous

can you show me a source that says conservatives want to reduce science funding to 0?

 

Wow, your overblown and intentional misconstruing of my post really proved me wrong.

 

Rather than blindly attack wording, have you actually done any research into the recent CIHR budget cuts? What about NSERC? I'd be game for intelligent discourse on the topic, if you have reason to think this is a good time for Canada to deflate research budgeting while other countries (USA, UK) are increasing.

 

Or, you know, you could highlight three words from this post and pretend they represent everything I've said. Whatever floats your boat.

[Erk]

For a start on sources you can read http://dontleavecanadabehind.wordpress.com/2011/03/08/call-to-the-cihr-community/, from the dude who started the 1,000 letters campaign that has become very popular in research institutions.

 

http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2011/03/canadian_budget_aims_to_please.html contains the proposed spending changes from the pre-election budget; even if one assumes that the budget is entirely honest and not written to garner votes in the election the cons knew would be coming, the spending 'increases' to research still don't cover the cuts of previous years; that's compared to a baseline internal to Canada, rather than other first world nations which have been boosting their R&D budgets while we slash ours.

[kylamonkey]

Not that any of this debating matters anyway.

 

From the progress of the campaign so far, we're just gonna end up with another minority Conservative govt, probably slightly smaller in size. Barring a MAJOR blunder from the Cons or the Liberals, we're not gonna move much more in the polls.

 

The conservatives have run a terrible campaign. It's been dogged with scandal and problems from the beginning. The Liberals have done better, but still not good enough to truly capitalize on the Conservative blunders. The NDP will do the same as they always do since they haven't really made any headway into areas/groups that aren't their traditional supporters. And the Bloc can't form a govt. anyway.

 

The outcome of the election will be another 3 years, just like the last 3 years. The only difference is leaders. Harper will probably be turfed. He will have failed to win a majority on 3 separate tries. The Cons will realize he's a dead horse. They will choose a new leader with more public appeal. Iggy will probably stay for another election as leader. Layton will be gone due the health reasons. Gilles will retire.

 

 

I think you've just called it. If you're right, congrats!