Mulcair Doesn't Rule Out F-35 Purchase

225 posts / 0 new
Last post
pookie

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

pookie wrote:

I gotta say - I honestly think Trudeau's position on the F-35's will resonate with more Cdns.  Mulcair can talk all he wants about "proper principles of public administration". I highly doubt the typical undecided voter gives a crap.  

And Harper's position is idiotic given that he has been sitting on this file for 10 years.

I really think they are trying to say the same things and sound different.

There is a real risk -- if I am correct and people see it this way -- that this could drive voters right back to the Conservatives. Many voters are not sophisticated and they could well reject the entire mess the Liberals and NDP have on offer due to the stench.

Not sure how the F-35 debacle could drive voters back to the Cons.  I believe most Cdns see the whole thing as a utter cock up.

Nobody of these lily-livered wonders is saying to cut defence spending.  They're just quibbling over process.

But if you are talking about the larger narrative, and the risks of the Libs/NDP continuing at each other's throats, I tend to agree.  

jjuares

Here is why Mulcair is correct on the facts but still politically he loses.

“The way to proceed would be to first figure out what you as a government want a fighter aircraft to do, and then proceed to an open competition,” said Williams, a former assistant deputy minister for procurement at defence. “That way the country gets the plane it needs and you maximize industry participation.”

Trudeau has suggested he would exclude F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin from bidding. But Williams said it is unlikely a government could prohibit a company from bidding in an open competition.

http://www.canada.com/news/canada/canada+could+pull+deal+without+financi...

Hunky_Monkey

Mulcair is calling for an open procurement.  Same as Jack Layton did in 2011. 

Rev Pesky

jjuares wrote:
... “The way to proceed would be to first figure out what you as a government want a fighter aircraft to do, and then proceed to an open competition,” said Williams...

To make this absolutely clear, jjuares posted this quote, but the quote itsef is from Alan Williams.

Williams gets this wrong. The first step is to decide whether you need a fighter aircraft at all. You don't, and I suspect that would be the position of a large portion of the NDP membership (and perhaps even a larger portion of the Canadian population as a whole).

Fighter aircraft service none of the needs of Canada, unless those needs include making the USA happy. Any legitimate need Canada has, such as monitoring our coastline, could be filled by a locally produced aircraft for 1/4 or less of the price of the useless pieces of garbage known as the F-35.

Sadly, that's a position that would only be taken by a progressive left party, none of whom appear to be running in this election.

Pondering

jjuares wrote:
Here is why Mulcair is correct on the facts but still politically he loses. “The way to proceed would be to first figure out what you as a government want a fighter aircraft to do, and then proceed to an open competition,” said Williams, a former assistant deputy minister for procurement at defence. “That way the country gets the plane it needs and you maximize industry participation.” Trudeau has suggested he would exclude F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin from bidding. But Williams said it is unlikely a government could prohibit a company from bidding in an open competition.
">http://www.canada.com/news/canada/canada+could+pull+deal+without+financi...

That isn't true. Trudeau rejected the F-35 not the company that builds it. If Lockheed Martin has a jet that satisfies Canada's requirements they can bid.

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

jjuares wrote:
Here is why Mulcair is correct on the facts but still politically he loses. “The way to proceed would be to first figure out what you as a government want a fighter aircraft to do, and then proceed to an open competition,” said Williams, a former assistant deputy minister for procurement at defence. “That way the country gets the plane it needs and you maximize industry participation.” Trudeau has suggested he would exclude F-35 manufacturer Lockheed Martin from bidding. But Williams said it is unlikely a government could prohibit a company from bidding in an open competition.
">http://www.canada.com/news/canada/canada+could+pull+deal+without+financi...

That isn't true. Trudeau rejected the F-35 not the company that builds it. If Lockheed Martin has a jet that satisfies Canada's requirements they can bid.


Now I am sure you know more than the deputy minister who worked that file but if you read closely he says that you determine the requirements first. It could be that the F-35 meets those requirements so they should be able to offer their plane as part of the process. Now if it is deemed as too expensive or lacking the right capabilities it would not be selected. The point is that Trudeau can not rule them out until the Air Force has determined its requirements. He shouldn't be prejudging this.

Pondering

Rev Pesky wrote:

Williams gets this wrong. The first step is to decide whether you need a fighter aircraft at all. You don't, and I suspect that would be the position of a large portion of the NDP membership (and perhaps even a larger portion of the Canadian population as a whole).

I doubt you there. We probably have some obligations under NORAD and I doubt many Canadians would agree to let our sole air defence to be the U.S. We need fighter jets to be linked into North American defence to have some control over what goes on in Canadian air space. If we lose the capacity to protect it the US will send their jets to patrol. We have to be able to produce some show of force. Having said that there is no need for stealth in defending Canada's own airspace. We don't have to hide in our own country. The only reason for stealth aircraft is to invade other regions.

Sean in Ottawa

pookie wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

pookie wrote:

I gotta say - I honestly think Trudeau's position on the F-35's will resonate with more Cdns.  Mulcair can talk all he wants about "proper principles of public administration". I highly doubt the typical undecided voter gives a crap.  

And Harper's position is idiotic given that he has been sitting on this file for 10 years.

I really think they are trying to say the same things and sound different.

There is a real risk -- if I am correct and people see it this way -- that this could drive voters right back to the Conservatives. Many voters are not sophisticated and they could well reject the entire mess the Liberals and NDP have on offer due to the stench.

Not sure how the F-35 debacle could drive voters back to the Cons.  I believe most Cdns see the whole thing as a utter cock up.

Nobody of these lily-livered wonders is saying to cut defence spending.  They're just quibbling over process.

But if you are talking about the larger narrative, and the risks of the Libs/NDP continuing at each other's throats, I tend to agree.  

Because a lot of voters barely pay attention to complicated sets of facts. The NDP and Liberals are likely losing votes back the Cons over what is perceived as their childishness. People are fed up with both of them placing  priority over taking each other down over achieving something.

terrytowel

terrytowel wrote:

Mr. Magoo wrote:

Quote:
War is nothing to joke about

And war is nothing to troll about.

As quizzical said I'm being petulant not trolling.

http://rabble.ca/comment/1527309#comment-1527309

quizzical wrote:

a petulant troll?

As Sean In Ottawa has said

Sean In Ottawa wrote:

That's uncalled for.

I see where TT is coming from and the point is not unreasonable to make even if you disagree.

And I'll take his Criticism/feedback over yours anyday as he is the most respected and level-headed person here on this board.

And there are other NDPers who just posted on this thread who are against the purchase of the F-35. Are you going to start calling them trolls for their anti Figther Jet stance?

What EXACTLY do we need Fighter Jets for? Instead of throwing insults around, why not answer the question?

Winston

*********************************************************************************

Tom Mulcair wants a procurement process based on a fair tendering process deriving from a properly-written Statement of Requirements and a sound analysis of Canada's defence needs!

*********************************************************************************

GASP!

He has COMPLETELY abandoned the principles of the Left!

< EYES ROLL IRREVOCABLY INTO THE BACK OF MY HEAD > 

terrytowel

Winston what exactly do we need fighter jets for? That is the question.

Rev Pesky

Pondering wrote:
...I doubt you there. We probably have some obligations under NORAD and I doubt many Canadians would agree to let our sole air defence to be the U.S. We need fighter jets to be linked into North American defence to have some control over what goes on in Canadian air space. If we lose the capacity to protect it the US will send their jets to patrol. We have to be able to produce some show of force. Having said that there is no need for stealth in defending Canada's own airspace. We don't have to hide in our own country. The only reason for stealth aircraft is to invade other regions.

I guess my first question is, which countries in the world have the capacity to invade our airspace? The list is pretty short. Almost all on that list would already be partners in NATO, so presumably we don't have to worry about them. The only country outside of NATO that has the capability is Russia (well, okay China does too, but China is a long ways away, and doesn't have access to our northern border). As with the USA, there is virtually nothing we could do to defend ourselves against Russia. And believe me, the USA doesn't think so either. They are monitoring our airspace as we speak.

Now I'll tell you a little something about NORAD. NORAD was once a joint operation between Canada and the USA to monitor and defend North American airspace. Canada joined NORAD, and was given joint command, with the USA supplying the commanding officer, and Canada supplying the deputy commanding officer. This was a bit of a quid pro quo to make the USA presence in our airspace more acceptaple to the Canadian public.

Post 9/11 the USA created another level of command above NORAD, which effectively relegated Canada's 'deputy Commander' to a nobody status. This also effectively trashed the agreement under which Canada entered NORAD. The excuse given was that 'well, the Americans have the most to lose... one can understand their concern, etc., etc., etc.'. The USA does not need our participation in monitoring our airspace, and indeed would just as soon we stood back and let them do it themselves. The buying of fighter aircraft for our 'defense' is nothing more than a public relations exercise. We couldnt' possibly defend our airspace against any other country that is capable of invading it, and the USA is quite well aware of this fact. So the purchase of these shiny new fighter aircraft do not meet any need that Canada might have. Besides, most monitoring is done by satellite nowadays anyhow.

However, as the old saying goes, use it or lose it, so we do need to look as though we're defending Arctic sovereignty. A conventional airplane that has a long range, and is capable of carrying radar would amply fill the bill. As I pointed out in an earlier post, this could be filled by a Bombardier Dash-8 which is already being used by the USA for exactly that purpose. These aricraft could be purchased for a fraction of the cost of the F-35, keep all the jobs in Canada, and nicely fulfill the actual need we have. They would also give us some rescue capability, and for progressives, these aircraft couldn't be used to kill and maim civilians overseas, which is what is happening right now.

Would the USA be upset? Yup, but it wouldn't make an iota's worth of difference to them re: North American defence. They have already factored in our non-existent ability.

On another note, let's not forget that the USA is an international violater of human rights, and a serial committer of crimes against humanity. I think most people around the world understand the  position we are in, as baby brother to a giant bully, but there may come a time when the USA leadership is called to account. At the trial I  wouldn't want to be the Canadian that has to say, "We were just following orders".

 

 

 

terrytowel

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Do you want Canada's north and its borders (and the disputed northwest passage) to be controlled by the United States, or by Canada?

By Canada but there are other options.

Unionist

terrytowel wrote:

Winston what exactly do we need fighter jets for? That is the question.

Yes. That is the question.

Here's a related question for those who believe the only issue is whether or not to have a phoney "competitive bid" and review process:

Do you know how the F-35's predecessor has been used in the past?

You don't?

Ah.

Now... any suggestions as to what model of nuclear sub we should be looking at? Defoliation agents? Cost effectiveness is crucial, in these uncertain economic times.

 

 

6079_Smith_W

terrytowel wrote:

Winston what exactly do we need fighter jets for? That is the question.

I know you were asking Winston, but this is actually a no-brainer, even if the the politically fashionable thing is to pretend it isn't reality.

Do you want Canada's north and its borders (and the disputed northwest passage) to be controlled by the United States, or by Canada?

And all the monitoring is done by satellite? It's not satellites which intercept jets on a regular basis testing the status of those borders.

 

6079_Smith_W

I'm particularly interested in the bid for puppy kicking. Can't have cost overruns and shoddy work in that department.

 

terrytowel

Unionist wrote:

Do you know how the F-35's predecessor has been used in the past?

RIght here on wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_CF-18_Hornet

quizzical

terrytowel wrote:
6079_Smith_W wrote:

Do you want Canada's north and its borders (and the disputed northwest passage) to be controlled by the United States, or by Canada?

By Canada but there are other options.

 

what options? Rail?

Unionist

terrytowel wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Do you know how the F-35's predecessor has been used in the past?

RIght here on wiki

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonnell_Douglas_CF-18_Hornet

Aw tt, I wanted this to be a little quiz for those NDP supporters who believe (based on no evidence) that Canada actually needs fighter aircraft.

But thanks anyway. Maybe they'll take time from their hyper-ventilating partisanship to actually inform themselves, think things over, come up with their own conclusions. It could be refreshing.

 

KenS

And by the way politics is done, the NDP is trapped.

They have two choices: we agree it should be killed, and are confident the process we proposed, the F-35 contract could never survive.

OR: they just make the best of the pickle they have put in, and not make it worse by just sticking with their long time position.

In the real world of politics "option" 1 is not really an option. They would never hear the end of the derision from the media... talk about walking into your campaign being taken away from you.

 

KenS

I dont think very many voters will pay attention to the food fight betweem the NDP and Liberals on this.

Trudeau says [at the last minute] kill it.

Mulcair and the NDP have demamnded for a long time a process that would be ceratin to kill it.

Substantive difference: zero.

But where it matters in politics: Trudeau scores a clear win here.

6079_Smith_W

Hyperventilating?

Maybe its from breathing in all that defoliant someone sprayed in the room.

And I'm not so sure it is a clear win, KenS. There is something to be said for due process, especially after a decade of rule by fiat.

 

Ciabatta2

KenS wrote:

And by the way politics is done, the NDP is trapped.

They have two choices: we agree it should be killed, and are confident the process we proposed, the F-35 contract could never survive.

OR: they just make the best of the pickle they have put in, and not make it worse by just sticking with their long time position.

In the real world of politics "option" 1 is not really an option. They would never hear the end of the derision from the media... talk about walking into your campaign being taken away from you.

This is best analysis.  If you are running in an election and actually have to think about siding with public procurement principles vs politics, you've already lost.

Sean in Ottawa

The NDP is not trapped by anything but itself.

There is a wrong-headed idea that in order to defeat Trudeau you ahve to disagree with him loudly on every issue. That tactic is wrong and it is backfiring.

The NDP should have been able to pick and choose the issues -- be on the correct side in all cases and where that aligns with Trudeau either say nothing when trudeau speaks or simply state -- that once in a while Trudeau is right about something. When it does not align with Trudeau -- ask the question -- is the difference obvious, explainable and relevant enough to the average voter -- if yes then go there -- if no then talk about something else.

This idea that every day the NDP has to attack Trudeau is leading to the NDP bleeding support rather than Trudeau. The reason is the voters will go along for attacks on Trudeau that are understood and substantive -- but now they look knee-jerk and have lost all value.

The difference on these jets is an example. Mulcair could ahve come out sounded like a PM and said -- Trudeau is right to scrap this terrible process. We will begin a new process that likely would not lead to this plane and we would like to have the support of the Liberal party in the House to do that. To fly off the handle is making Mulcair look less ready than he says he is.

As I ahve said -- this election is coloured by impression as much as fact. If the cumulative impression is that Trudeau and Mulcair are fighting like kids -- even if the Conservatives have bad policy, they will benefit. Otherwise voters may choose the one they think is being the most mature -- on the F-35 right now that is not Mulcair.

The NDP has to guard against coming across as petty. Right now they are and this is hurting them. The poll in Papineau came across that way. If there is a defense for the poll where is it? The NDP have lost badly on this story and I expect the next round of polls to show them way back in third. They are clearly unprepared for what is being thrown at them even though it is all predictable. The NDP response team is MIA.

I sure hope the party has a plan to turn this around but the momentum is solidly against them and their efforts are making it worse.

 

Unionist

quizzical wrote:

terrytowel wrote:
6079_Smith_W wrote:

Do you want Canada's north and its borders (and the disputed northwest passage) to be controlled by the United States, or by Canada?

By Canada but there are other options.

 

what options? Rail?

Maybe diplomacy. Negotiations. Peace.

Oh what am I thinking. Aerial dogfights! Bomb the buggers! Instil fear in the heart of the heathen!

Protect our true North strong and free!

O Canada!

We stand on guard for thee!

Sean in Ottawa

As for what we need. We need a plane that can monitor our airspace. We need a plane that is somewhat capable of engagement. We do not need to have a plane that is technologically superior to the Russians or Americans.

The reason is that any defense we have is token when it comes to force and that is sufficient. The fact that there is a plane there challenging is the issue not by any means does it need to be a force designed to defeat whatever the Russians can put in the sky. The reality is that the deterrent is a combination of the alliances Canada has and the desire for Russia to interact with the world community. In Canada's case, Canada has never had, nor is it capable of having, an independent military capability to resist an attack from Russia. The Russians would not want to shoot a Canadian plane down and that is why they don't. Pretending otherwise is ridiculous.

So a plane with some armament, capability to fly distance and operate in cold, capable of advanced monitoring and communication is what is needed. A top line competitive plane that we could only afford a handful of is the wrong solution and will create an expectation of offensive hostile use. The reality, as I understand it, is that the Hornets come close to doing the job and if it were not for their age they could continue this role. A replacement never needed to be an advanced warplane capable of attacking foreign countries. That is the plane we are buying and what it is for. An assessment of Canada's defense needs would exclude the F-35 in part because it would deliver a small number of over equipped planes not needed for the work rather than a larger number of less expensive planes that would monitor our airspace effectively.

The F-35 is a war machine to make war in concert with our friends not a defense plane that can realistically make a difference to Canada's territorial defense.

Unionist

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
As for what we need. We need a plane that can monitor our airspace. We need a plane that is somewhat capable of engagement. We do not need to have a plane that is technologically superior to the Russians or Americans.

[and everything else you said]

Thanks, Sean. I do hope others are listening.

 

terrytowel

Sean in Ottawa is once again BANG ON.

The Liberals are fighting dirty, latest salvo? They are circulating flyers that Matthew Kellway sent out that says the NDP Defeated the Conseravatives Paln to spend $50 billion on the F-35 fighter jets.

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

Thanks, Sean. I do hope others are listening.

Yes, we can read, and have been following the conversation. and some of us are rolling our eyes at that condescending comment.

Has Mulcair said he will sign off on the F-35 deal?

 

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Unionist wrote:

Thanks, Sean. I do hope others are listening.

Yes, we can read, and have been following the conversation. and some of us are rolling our eyes at that condescending comment.

Yes, the Con descending, that's what I'm hoping for on Oct. 19. Thanks for rolling your eyes in support!!

6079_Smith_W wrote:
Has Mulcair said he will sign off on the F-35 deal?

Um, no. He has attacked Justin Trudeau for saying the right thing (and God is that a rare event). That's the criticism of Mulcair. Perhaps you should review the thread more carefully.

Pondering

terrytowel wrote:

Sean in Ottawa is once again BANG ON.

The Liberals are fighting dirty, latest salvo? They are circulating flyers that Matthew Kellway sent out that says the NDP Defeated the Conseravatives Paln to spend $50 billion on the F-35 fighter jets.

Circulating an NDP flyer that points out opposition to the F-35s! How dastardly!

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

He has attacked Justin Trudeau for saying the right thing (and God is that a rare event). That's the criticism of Mulcair. Perhaps you should review the thread more carefully.

From the Globe piece already quoted upthread:

Quote:

Mulcair said Trudeau was showing a lack of experience in cancelling the F-35 purchase, instead of opting for an open competition between various aircraft makers, calling that “the basic rule of public administration.”

At the same time, the New Democrat leader also criticized Harper for endorsing the project in the first place, while suggesting there are cheaper and better options for the air force.

“Our military needs a new jet. It’s obvious we need a new fighter, but where are we going to get it, and in what timeline?” Mulcair said.

My eyes and my command of English aren't the best. Maybe you can point me to the part where he says (according to you)  Trudeau is wrong because he is doing the right thing.

6079_Smith_W

Pondering wrote:

Circulating an NDP flyer that points out opposition to the F-35s! How dastardly!

And strangely consistent with what Mulcair said just this week. See the post before yours.

Sean in Ottawa

I don't find sending out the NDP flyer to point out a contradiction to be dirty at all.

It was predictable. The fact this is in multiple flyers means that the NDP HQ ought to have known this problem woudl be there. Mulcair's statements about Trudeau's position on the F-35 were stupid and the Liberal response (so far) predictable.

I suspect the Liberals are going to go further than this and Mulcair has himself to blame.

I have said that the weakness of Mulcair and the NDP over the last year has been a tendency to be too cute. They will pay dearly.

As a long-time NDP suporter I have to decide if I want to complain to the party or not bother becuase they leave no indication that they are listening.

No matter what you say about the Greens -- their platform is progressive this time. They may well get my vote if I decide not to support the NDP.

Pondering

I will say this, if Sean were running the NDP campaign the NDP would be winning.

BRF

Why don't we ask those that will be putting their lives on the line in the event of an air war what they woulod like to pilot? My guess is it would not be the F 35.....

http://seriousbirder.com/blogs/the-f-35-the-flying-turkey-that-burns-hol...

http://nationalinterest.org/feature/the-russian-bear-roars-the-sky-bewar...

 

Which one would you choose to do aerial combat with?

jjuares

Pondering wrote:

I will say this, if Sean were running the NDP campaign the NDP would be winning.


Flattery ( even if so obviously insincere) will get you everywhere.

ctrl190

What ever gain the Grits are getting from NDP Com's F-35 snafu are now being demoted to the back pages with Trudeau's women remarks and Harper's Terry Fox comments.

terrytowel

Pondering wrote:

I will say this, if Sean were running the NDP campaign the NDP would be winning.

Absolutely I agree. Sean I think there is a job opening for you in 2019

ctrl190 wrote:

What ever gain the Grits are getting from NDP Com's F-35 snafu are now being demoted to the back pages with Trudeau's women remarks and Harper's Terry Fox comments.

I've noticed that in the news coverage today. The F-35 seem to be a one day story. But we have the Foreign Policy Debate coming up, which gives Mulcair a better chance to come up with a better response. Because right now saving over $40 Billion dollars by cancelling the F-35 is a catchier sound-bite than saying we will review all options.

Rev Pesky

As posted above from the Globe & Mail:

Quote:
“Our military needs a new jet. It’s obvious we need a new fighter, but where are we going to get it, and in what timeline?” Mulcair said.

This is quite simply wrong. Canada does not need fighter jets.

Sean in Ottawa

Rev Pesky wrote:

As posted above from the Globe & Mail:

Quote:
“Our military needs a new jet. It’s obvious we need a new fighter, but where are we going to get it, and in what timeline?” Mulcair said.

This is quite simply wrong. Canada does not need fighter jets.

And at least if the issue is, as the NDP says it is, not to prejudge the process, how do you come out with that?

At the least Canada should provide a new strategic direction for its armed forces. this direction should assess the capabilities needed and only then could you determine that such a need exists.

Plus the F-35 is not any old fighter jet it is an extremely expensive one that is designed for certain types of theatres -- offensive roles.

Canada may well, upon review, need a new fighter jet for arctic patrol and patrol of the country's airspace. Scrapping the ultra expensive experimental aircraft procurement might allow for a more budget friendly plane that could be purchased in enough quantity to perform these roles. By buying a warplane designed to participate in offensive missions, we lose the capacity to buy an affordable plane capable of patroling our own air space.

Trudeau is right the F-35 procurement program should be scrapped. Then an assessment should be done to determine what we need. This should come before comments like what Tom Mulcair just said where he criticizes a policy announcement that is close to what NDP members expect, endorse and what NDP election flyers are advertising..

The problem here is this pettiness is the stuff that could cost the NDP the campaign.

6079_Smith_W

Cost them the campaign? I don't know about that.

But I'm not sure if it is helpful or accurate to spin his criticism of Trudeau as tacit support for Harper, as some are doing.

Trudeau said that the F-35 could be cancelled with no cost to the Canadian aerospace industry. Mulcair pointed out he is wrong. So that gets spun as Mulcair agreeing with Harper?

A defense official who even agrees there would be no financial penalty said the government can't prevent a company from making a bid:

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/we-could-walk...

Mulcair also questioned whether the plane could even fly. But the issue was that there is a process for making that decision.

... at least we are past wondering whether he has to check with Margaret Thatcher first to get the okay on his plan to bury the NDP policy manual.

I hope.

Sean in Ottawa

I do think that cure pettiness is a critical danger to the campaign.

The contention ofdamage or not to the Canadian industry is not the main thrust of Mulcair's comments. He was attacking a position that the NDP has been backing -- the F-35 program must be scrapped. Mulcair had said the same thing multiple times. To attack Trudeau for finally saying the same thing appears petty no matter how you spin the detail.

I don't feel sorry for Trudeau -- it is the NDP campaign that gets harmed by this stuff.

A process may pick which advanced fighter plane we buy but the process to decide if that is a priority we want to indulge also exists and that is an election campaign.

I disagree that it is a given that we need a machine anything like that. It is not a legal or process problem for Trudeau (or Mulcair before him) to exclude the entire program as it is not prejudicial to one company - it is not as if we are excluding one company to buy a similar plane for similar money from another. This is not a question of bias but a question of the appropriateness of a procurement program.

Given NDP positions on involvement in Nato and US bombings, it is hard to see why the NDP would leave the door open -- even a crack -- for that plane. The plane has already been decalred unfit as a choice for domestic defence.

As well the NDP has the problem that it must cut Conservative spending as well as increase corporate taxes in order to cover NDP priorities and balance the budget. This 50 billion dollar plane should be declared beyond the reach of the NDP budget.

Both Mulcair and Trudeau seem willing to consider lesser expensive planes.

The only differences between the NDP and Liberal positions are rhetorical and theya re being tarted up as something else to justify a criticism that had no practical or political purpose.

Trudeau could have come out yesterday demanding to know why the Liberals have not one single health care initiative proposed - and they were the first to damage the provincial health care budgets back in the Martin budget days...

Where are the Liberals on healthcare innovation?

Where is the NDP for that matter?  The NDP could be talking about Health research -- an area well worth investing in... Going after Trudeau on this looks petty.

 

 

Unionist

6079_Smith_W wrote:

My eyes and my command of English aren't the best.

Agreed.

Quote:
Maybe you can point me to the part where he says (according to you)  Trudeau is wrong because he is doing the right thing.

Mulcair says Trudeau is wrong about the F-35s. I'm the one (me, I, Unionist, not Mulcair the puppet of his handlers) who is saying Trudeau is doing the right thing (rare as that may be).

Still having trouble with English? Like me to repeat that? Monosyllabically?

The F-35's should be cancelled. Kind of like Energy East. Without study, without competitive processes, without environmental analysis. Just fucking shit-canned.

Simple enough for you? Prefer a French translation? Building another straw man?

 

 

NDPP

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

Given NDP positions on involvement in Nato and US bombings, it is hard to see why the NDP would leave the door open -- even a crack -- for that plane. The plane has already been declared unfit as a choice for domestic defence.

Scrapping Fighter Jet Purchase Could Hurt Everyone: US (2011)

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Scrapping+fighter+purchase+could+hurt+e...

"Canada's participation in a massive fighter-jet purchase is critical for all payers involved, US Defence Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday, amid suggestions that a Liberal government could jeopardize the project.

Following a bilateral meeting in Ottawa with Defence Minister Peter MacKay, Gates said he didn't wish to interfere in Canada's domestic affairs but that he hoped, 'for all our sakes', all the parties involved in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter program will 'move forward' with it."

Perhaps this explains the door left 'even a crack' ajar...And with all the Russophobic paranoia flying around certain quarters just watch for the 'crack' to grow

6079_Smith_W

Unionist wrote:

Simple enough for you? Prefer a French translation? Building another straw man?

No Unionist. I just didn't think I needed to spell it out for you:

That while you might not agree with Mulcair, his argument to see a process through is perfectly valid, and that while Trudeau's decree might get a lot of attention, it isn't necessarily the best way to negotiate one's way out of a multi-billion dollar deal.

Similarly, Mulcair's pointing out that cancelling it isn't necessarily loss-free, as Mr. Trudeau said.

And my pointing out that he has not said anything in favour of the F-35 deal is not a straw argument at all. On the contrary, he has criticized Harper for it, and criticized the plane itself.

Given the many assumptions about what this means, which he hasn't said at all, I think it IS kind of important to separate the wheat from the chaff.

As I said, maybe a decade of a Leader ruling by decree has made us kind of used to that way of conducting tenders and government business. That doesn't make it the right way.

(and yeah, I know it was you who said it. I think you might be taking this conversation a bit TOO seriously if you can't tell when I'm nudging you in the ribs)

Sean in Ottawa

How do you define a loss or lack of one?

For example do we forget about the massive investment and look at the minor spin offs and declare the loss of those spin-offs significant?

So if I buy some fancy shoes for $100 and get a a $5 cash back at the counter I should determine that there will be a loss of $5 becuase I did not buy the shoes? Well actually -- I still have my $100 and if I do something else maybe I get more back than the $5.

Back to the planes.

If we were to take this 50 Billion bucks and put it into something else would we not get a spin-off from that?

Trudeau is right Mulcair is wrong on this. You don't lose something unless the investment you saved by not doing that thing cannot be put to equal or better use with an equal or better return. I think it can.

Mulcair's thinkning is right up there with your favorite retaillor telling you how much you will save by buying something.

I say don't buy it and you save more.

Does anyone want to enter a conversation about how far a 50 billion dollar invest could go in the right place?

What kind of spin-off would we get to build high-speed rail Quebec to Windsor? That is a little over 1/3 of the cost to build this.

If we buy a more basic Canadian plane able to handle domestic defence patrols etc. what spin off would we get? And we do pharmacare with the pocket change.

If you agree, as the NDP has long said, that the F-35 has a poor ROI to Canadian industry then there is no loss through cutting it greater than the opportunity cost of the invest you saved.

jjuares

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

How do you define a loss or lack of one?

For example do we forget about the massive investment and look at the minor spin offs and declare the loss of those spin-offs significant?

So if I buy some fancy shoes for $100 and get a a $5 cash back at the counter I should determine that there will be a loss of $5 becuase I did not buy the shoes? Well actually -- I still have my $100 and if I do something else maybe I get more back than the $5.

Back to the planes.

If we were to take this 50 Billion bucks and put it into something else would we not get a spin-off from that?

Trudeau is right Mulcair is wrong on this. You don't lose something unless the investment you saved by not doing that thing cannot be put to equal or better use with an equal or better return. I think it can.

Mulcair's thinkning is right up there with your favorite retaillor telling you how much you will save by buying something.

I say don't buy it and you save more.

Does anyone want to enter a conversation about how far a 50 billion dollar invest could go in the right place?

What kind of spin-off would we get to build high-speed rail Quebec to Windsor? That is a little over 1/3 of the cost to build this.

If we buy a more basic Canadian plane able to handle domestic defence patrols etc. what spin off would we get? And we do pharmacare with the pocket change.

If you agree, as the NDP has long said, that the F-35 has a poor ROI to Canadian industry then there is no loss through cutting it greater than the opportunity cost of the invest you saved.


Has Mulcair talked about the spinoffs. I haven't read that but perhaps he has. If he has, he shouldn't because whatever plane we but will have some spinoffs in all likelihood. Anyways these planes like all weapon systems are massive boondoggles with huge costs for the taxpayer. F-35 may be worse than some but they are all going to be costly to buy and maintain.

6079_Smith_W

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Trudeau is right Mulcair is wrong on this.

What do you base that on, Sean?

I mean, I am willing to consider the opinion of the defense official (in that National Post article) who says he doesn't think there will be a financial penalty (not the same as "no loss"). But he's not a corporate lawyer or an expert in international trade. And neither are you or I.

For that matter, Mulcair isn't either, though he is a lawyer, which means he might be a bit more careful about what he says than the rest of us.

That's why although Mulcair's approach might not be quite as sexy, it just might be a bit wiser in the long run in not giving any disgruntled bidders (who presumably this government has to work with in the future) any justification for crying that political bias had any role in derailing the process. It's one thing to say it is a bad plane, or the wrong plane, or a bad deal. Quite another to say you are going to kill a deal before the process to consider it has run its course.

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

jjuares wrote:
Sean in Ottawa wrote:

How do you define a loss or lack of one?

For example do we forget about the massive investment and look at the minor spin offs and declare the loss of those spin-offs significant?

So if I buy some fancy shoes for $100 and get a a $5 cash back at the counter I should determine that there will be a loss of $5 becuase I did not buy the shoes? Well actually -- I still have my $100 and if I do something else maybe I get more back than the $5.

Back to the planes.

If we were to take this 50 Billion bucks and put it into something else would we not get a spin-off from that?

Trudeau is right Mulcair is wrong on this. You don't lose something unless the investment you saved by not doing that thing cannot be put to equal or better use with an equal or better return. I think it can.

Mulcair's thinkning is right up there with your favorite retaillor telling you how much you will save by buying something.

I say don't buy it and you save more.

Does anyone want to enter a conversation about how far a 50 billion dollar invest could go in the right place?

What kind of spin-off would we get to build high-speed rail Quebec to Windsor? That is a little over 1/3 of the cost to build this.

If we buy a more basic Canadian plane able to handle domestic defence patrols etc. what spin off would we get? And we do pharmacare with the pocket change.

If you agree, as the NDP has long said, that the F-35 has a poor ROI to Canadian industry then there is no loss through cutting it greater than the opportunity cost of the invest you saved.

Has Mulcair talked about the spinoffs. I haven't read that but perhaps he has. If he has, he shouldn't because whatever plane we but will have some spinoffs in all likelihood. Anyways these planes like all weapon systems are massive boondoggles with huge costs for the taxpayer. F-35 may be worse than some but they are all going to be costly to buy and maintain.

Exactly and if we do something else with the money the spin-offs could be even greater. There is no net cost to rejecting this plane. That is why I said Trudeau is correct on this and Mulcair is not. And when it comes to politics Trudeau is correct again and Mulcair is not.

Pages