Election 2015

[Harrigan]

I am glad someone mentioned debt in an earlier post.  I am concerned about the shape of the nations's debt-to-GDP ratio, and what the three parties intend to do to address it and ideally get it back to where it was in 1988 and 2007.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/canada/government-debt-to-gdp

As you can see, being a "left-wing government" or a "right-wing government" does not appear to have any bearing at all on how the government manages our money.  Both have good and bad history.

Harrigan

 

[Harrigan]

Here's a separate question that I'll frame in an Electoral perspective:

Given that the one constant in efforts within the CAF to reduce budgets in various iterations was that the two sacred cows are personnel numbers and infrastructure (ie. bases), do you think there might be movement post election in one or both of these depending on who wins?  Obviously those two areas are both the ones with the most impact at the voting booth and a massive chunk of our defence budget - and effectively untouchable.

I guess what I am asking is:  Do you think there could be a reduction in personnel and/or bases post-October?

Harrigan

 

[Remius]

Here's a separate question that I'll frame in an Electoral perspective:

Given that the one constant in efforts within the CAF to reduce budgets in various iterations was that the two sacred cows are personnel numbers and infrastructure (ie. bases), do you think there might be movement post election in one or both of these depending on who wins?  Obviously those two areas are both the ones with the most impact at the voting booth and a massive chunk of our defence budget - and effectively untouchable.

I guess what I am asking is:  Do you think there could be a reduction in personnel and/or bases post-October?

Harrigan

Yes. 

The CPC certainly don't/didn't want to see this before an election.  My guess is that post election, our new CDS will be given broad directions on making the forces leaner.  You know, the same language we've been hearing.  The CPC have been cutting the CAF through neglect but after a win would be ina position to do it through cuts and re-allocations.  Not sure exactly where, but I see a plan to increase the reserves (this way they can claim that they aren't really cutting anything), a reduction in top heavy positions, a further reduction in non-reserve class b positions and the real possibilty of losing an infantry batallion (likely by merging understrength ones).  CANSOFCOM to get an increase in numbers and budget.  Navy to get a bit of attention recruiting wise and an airforce that will be left stagnant.

If the NDP get in and I see a retraction in operations, increase in reserves while reducing the regular force.  Combat arms to likely take the brunt of that one as teh mentality will be domestic ops and humanitarian aid.  CANSOFCOM to remain the same.  Savings through attrition and by slowing recruiting into the regular force.  ironically I see reserve restructuring as more of a possibility under an NDP government than under a CPC one.

As for bases I doubt either will cut or close any but I wouldn't be shocked if some facilities and land on bases get sold.

You'll notice I didn't mention the liberals as I doubt they will form government so my hypothetical will not have any basis due to the practical not having a chance of happening.   

 

[dapaterson]

Problem is that closures incur upfront costs for longer term savings, so they may not be popular options if savings are required immediately.  That said, moving 1 RCHA and 2 VP to Edmonton (or Wainwright) would let us turn out the lights in Shilo; Goose Bay is long overdue for closure... there are numerous other installations that have likely outlived their usefulness as well.

On the personnel front, the question becomes "What do we expect the CAF to do?"  Pers and equipment should be driven by that question - and not by the unfortunate parochial concerns that require us to have a Reg F infantry organized with battalions in some multiple of three to maintain a balance of terror.  Selection and maintenance of the aim is followed - but the aim is not always readiness of forces to meet the nation's needs.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here's a separate question that I'll frame in an Electoral perspective:

Given that the one constant in efforts within the CAF to reduce budgets in various iterations was that the two sacred cows are personnel numbers and infrastructure (ie. bases), do you think there might be movement post election in one or both of these depending on who wins?  Obviously those two areas are both the ones with the most impact at the voting booth and a massive chunk of our defence budget - and effectively untouchable.

I guess what I am asking is:  Do you think there could be a reduction in personnel and/or bases post-October?

Harrigan

I think the more pertinent question is: does anyone really important really care any more?

I know we care, and so does Gen Vance, of course, and Jason Kenny cares too (and he, Kenny, is pretty important) but my question remains: does anyone really important really care any more?

Back in June of 2012 the prime minister (who is really important) sent a letter (presumably drafted by the Clerk of the Privy Council, who is also really important) to Defence Minister Peter Mackay (who is pretty important) telling him to cut some fat from the "administrative" side ~ people (including those in HQs) and some real property, too. The minister, presumably advised by his CDS (then Gen Walt Natynczyk, six months later it was Gen Tom Lawson), decided to ignore the "guidance" from the really important people in the centre and, now, we have the current mess.

What I find interesting is that nothing happened ... My guess is that Prime Minister Harper did care, but not enough to fire his MND; but, seeing that his minister and CDS didn't care enough, he, Prime Minister Harper, moved on to other, more pressing matters. I suspect we you the CF had a window of opportunity to secure the prime minister's attention and they, the MND and CDS et al screwed the CF the country by placing the wants of a few admirals and generals over the needs of the organization and the government.

I don't believe that any Canadian prime minister since Louis St Laurent has actually cared about the military ~ and M St Laurent only cared to the extent that the CF was doing, efficiently and effectively, the role he had assigned them in his quest to make Canada a "leading middle power." (Prime Minister Trudeau cared, in his own, way: he actively disliked the military ~ seeing it as a mindless tool of nationalism, his "great evil" in society, and he mistrusted the people in it, including the most senior Francophomnes. M Trudeau's dislike was principled, not personal.) I do not believe that Prime Minister Harper ever really cared, but he was willing to, and did invest some political capital in DND ~ that letter was important to him and to DND ~ but when he got no return on his investment he turned his attention to more fruitful endeavours.

 

[Kirkhill]

I think the more pertinent question is: does anyone really important really care any more?

...

What I find interesting is that nothing happened ... My guess is that Prime Minister Harper did care, but not enough to fire his MND; but, seeing that his minister and CDS didn't care enough, he, Prime Minister Harper, moved on to other, more pressing matters. I suspect we you the CF had a window of opportunity to secure the prime minister's attention and they, the MND and CDS et al screwed the CF the country by placing the wants of a few admirals and generals over the needs of the organization and the government....

I can't help but wonder how often that window has been assaulted, and occasionally levered open, only to be slammed shut by the institutional inertia behind it.

I love tradition.  But I also want to see a reactive, adaptive force that is supplying real value to the citizens of Canada, through their government, operating in the real world.

To be honest, at this stage, after 12 years of listening to, and participating in, these discussions, I would be just as happy if the Canadian Army disappeared and the dollars and manpower assigned to CANSOFCOM and CJOC.  The Canadian Army and CADTC could soldier on in the Militia.

If you want to maintain traditions then kilts, rifle green tunics and tan berets on CANSOFCOM troopers would make quite a fashion statement - and you could wear the kilts Aberdeen style - with cowboy boots.

 

[Remius]

In other related election news, does anyone else see this as the Ontario Liberals doing the LPC a favour?  Looks almost like baiting in the hopes that Ontarians will turn away from the CPC.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/ontario-liberals-want-federal-support-for-pension-plan-1.3173930

 

[Edward Campbell]

But, I see that the CPC is calling it (as the CBC item notes) the "Trudeau-Wynne Massive Payroll Tax Hike."

There is considerable opposition, in Ontario, especially from e.g. small business owners, to the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan, just as there is considerable support from the expected quarters.

It seems, over the past few days, anyway, that the CPC attacks have turned away from "Just Not Ready" and towards economic issues ...

But it is possible to combine the two:

The Conservative Party of Canada seems to believe that there is enough opposition to Premier Wynne's policies in the ridings in which they (the CPC) need to win to create a wedge that can be used against Liberals.

 

[Acorn]

Harper is different from Mulroney, certainly.  I don't think anyone has accused Harper of taking money, or for that matter intervening to obtain favourable treatment in a real estate deal.  No-one has accused any of Harper's COS of altering a document to protect Harper.  Harper is, fortunately, a pretty bland guy; I'm sure if he were caught on questionable premises he'd dominate the Canadian internet for a while.

People's disagreements with Harper are about policy.  Remarkably, there are still no hordes of soldiers with guns in the streets.

No, but they have accused his COS of "buying off" The Ol' Duff. My concerns about the party are the direction it has taken which deviates from the path promised - transparency, trustworthiness, no more "business as usual" politics. But every move I can see over the past five years seems in the direction of one goal - remaining in power.

Things like the dirty tricks described above as "pranks" are a result of the direction of the leadership, if not explicitly directed. The Duffy payoff (and the original appointment) was a failure of leadership. Making Tony "Gazebo" Clement head of the Treasury Board (!) is a failure of leadership - though to be fair, Clement hasn't had an original thought and he seems good at repeating the party line even in the face of court challenges, so I guess he's a suitable puppet appointment for a leadership that wants central control. Fantino? Are you kidding me? And Blaney has a creepy resemblance to The Smoking Man (OK, I admit that'sunfair, but I couldn't resist).

Then there's the new tactic, since the SCC proved to be less than co-operative: neglect. It's been mentioned above regarding the CF - for years the Army got stuff because of Afghanistan while the Air Force got what it needed to support the Army - all good. But the RCAF and RCN have really been neglected throughout the current gov'ts tenure. If I was a cynic I'd think the CF was just a platform for photo ops. But that can't be, can it, given the tough stance on Foreign Affairs. Nonna that lefty crap about diplomacy and stuff.

Why did Baird quit in such a fashion? Or McKay? Or the others who have taken a walk in the past few months? They think the leadership has set course for the rocks and tied down the wheel. Kenney may weather it, or he may end up Kim Campbelled.

Whatever else this election is, it will be the one that has me most conflicted marking my ballot since I first voted. At least I still can, even though I've been out of the country for a bit more than three and a half years.

 

[Kilo_302]

Here's an article that describes the government's dismal record of managing the economy:


http://rabble.ca/columnists/2015/07/worst-canadas-economy-under-harper-government

The very poor economic record of the Harper government cannot be blamed on the fact that Canada experienced a recession in 2008-09. In fact, Canada experienced a total of 10 recessions during the 1946-2014 period. Most governments had to grapple with recession at some point during their tenures -- and some prime ministers had to deal with more than one. Instead, statistical evidence shows that the recovery from the 2008-09 recession has been the weakest (by far) of any Canadian recovery since the Depression. A uniquely weak recovery, not the fact that Canada experienced a recession at all, helps explains the Harper government's poor economic rating.

Also, Acorn it looks like your questions regarding Baird may be answered soon. This is gonna be good.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/anonymous-threatens-to-decrypt-text-messages-from-john-baird-to-reveal-real-reason-he-left-politics

Hackers with Anonymous — who last week leaked a seemingly legitimate secret document on cyber-security at Canada’s spy agency — threatened Wednesday to release decrypted text messages from former Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird allegedly showing the “real reason” why he abruptly left politics.

The warning was made in social media from an account the National Post confirms is one that has been operated by activists responsible for the CSIS leak.

 

[Edward Campbell]

No, but they have accused his COS of "buying off" The Ol' Duff. My concerns about the party are the direction it has taken which deviates from the path promised - transparency, trustworthiness, no more "business as usual" politics. But every move I can see over the past five years seems in the direction of one goal - remaining in power.

Things like the dirty tricks described above as "pranks" are a result of the direction of the leadership, if not explicitly directed. The Duffy payoff (and the original appointment) was a failure of leadership. Making Tony "Gazebo" Clement head of the Treasury Board (!) is a failure of leadership - though to be fair, Clement hasn't had an original thought and he seems good at repeating the party line even in the face of court challenges, so I guess he's a suitable puppet appointment for a leadership that wants central control. Fantino? Are you kidding me? And Blaney has a creepy resemblance to The Smoking Man (OK, I admit that'sunfair, but I couldn't resist).

Then there's the new tactic, since the SCC proved to be less than co-operative: neglect. It's been mentioned above regarding the CF - for years the Army got stuff because of Afghanistan while the Air Force got what it needed to support the Army - all good. But the RCAF and RCN have really been neglected throughout the current gov'ts tenure. If I was a cynic I'd think the CF was just a platform for photo ops. But that can't be, can it, given the tough stance on Foreign Affairs. Nonna that lefty crap about diplomacy and stuff.

Why did Baird quit in such a fashion? Or McKay? Or the others who have taken a walk in the past few months? They think the leadership has set course for the rocks and tied down the wheel. Kenney may weather it, or he may end up Kim Campbelled.

Whatever else this election is, it will be the one that has me most conflicted marking my ballot since I first voted. At least I still can, even though I've been out of the country for a bit more than three and a half years.

Not quite, for me, but I'm a lot older than most and I cast my first ballot in the early 1960s ~ for Prime Minister Pearson's Liberals, but I never voted Liberal again after Pearson retired. I disagreed with Pearson's Liberals on social policy, they were "lurching left" at that time, but I disagreed even more with John Diefenbaker's Conservatives on on several key issues, including his own leadership (but not on civil rights where the Tories always were out in front of the Liberals, nor on his vision for the North).

But, you're right, I will be conflicted, too ... but, I am convinced that Prime Minister Harper's Conservatives are the least bad choice, even though I disagree, in a few cases quite vehemently, with about half of their policies ~ in so far as I understand them. The problem is that I disagree, even more vehemently, with almost everything Messers Mulcair and Trudeau appear to propose ~ again as far as I can understand what they're saying since both seem to have different policies for different parts of the country. Of course it's no secret that I completely mistrust M Trudeau's leadership ~ I think he is weak and indecisive, little more than a ventriloquist's dummy with good looks and even better hair. (I do trust M Mulcair's leadership ~ I'm just not persuaded that he can drag his party into the political centre with him.)

I believe that the whole of politics in all (almost all, anyway) of the modern, liberal, Western democracies is broken ~ parties are, most often, captive of special interests with money, on all sides of the many and varied issues; the business of politics has become a public relations exercise ~ marketing has overwhelmed policy ideas; leadership has been replaced by image ~ how else to explain M Trudeau? I was never surprised when the late Lee Kuan Yew expressed his fear that the liberal democracies were sowing the seeds of their own destruction through their selfishness and disregard for their communities; he was a Confucian and a lawyer: he came close to worshiping the rule of law and he despised the sort of rampant individualism that, he thought, weakened the Western liberal democracies. I watched this evolution from our own communitarian liberalism, in the 1950s and '60s, under e.g. St Laurent and Eisenhower, to a mix of rampant individualism coupled, contradictorily, with the rise of the entitled "nanny state." We tossed aside the values of Main Street in favour of behind the scenes rule by Wall Street and Bay Street in and after the 1970s (Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford and Carter and Trudeau, in Canada).

I'm not surprised that you and I find it almost distasteful to cast our votes ... it's a bit like giving money to panhandlers when you know, for certain, that it will just go for booze or drugs.

 

[Remius]

Here's an article that describes the government's dismal record of managing the economy:


http://rabble.ca/columnists/2015/07/worst-canadas-economy-under-harper-government


Also, Acorn it looks like your questions regarding Baird may be answered soon. This is gonna be good.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/anonymous-threatens-to-decrypt-text-messages-from-john-baird-to-reveal-real-reason-he-left-politics

Kilo, I actually respect your positions on all of this despite not always agreeing.  I do agree with some of your points and positions at times, but quoting anything from rabble.ca is akin to someone quoting something from sun TV. Both are on the extreme of each spectrum.  No one is going to take that seriously.

As to the other thing about John Baird, I concur.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Good numbers for the NDP ...

 

[Brad Sallows]

>2008-09 recession has been the weakest (by far) of any Canadian recovery since the Depression. A uniquely weak recovery, not the fact that Canada experienced a recession at all, helps explains the Harper government's poor economic rating.

That is what you get from weak minds, or minds determined to hide inconvenient facts.  Most countries experienced uniquely - or uncommonly - weak recoveries since the 2008-2009 recession.  Canada's recovery has been remarked upon at various points in time since the recession as being one of the stronger ones relative to other nations.

 

[cupper]

>2008-09 recession has been the weakest (by far) of any Canadian recovery since the Depression. A uniquely weak recovery, not the fact that Canada experienced a recession at all, helps explains the Harper government's poor economic rating.

That is what you get from weak minds, or minds determined to hide inconvenient facts.  Most countries experienced uniquely - or uncommonly - weak recoveries since the 2008-2009 recession.  Canada's recovery has been remarked upon at various points in time since the recession as being one of the stronger ones relative to other nations.

To add to that, Canada was not impacted as significantly as other countries, particularly the US with respect to the collapse of the housing markets, and needs for bailouts for financial institutions.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Why did Baird quit in such a fashion? Or McKay? Or the others who have taken a walk in the past few months? They think the leadership has set course for the rocks and tied down the wheel.

The pension rules change is a simpler explanation.  To that we can add the fact that most of the people involved had reached the end of the typical length of service of a parliamentarian.

I'm underwhelmed by whether or not some of Harper's appointments have been mediocre.  But I live in BC, where the NDP has been dominated for much of the past two decades by the Clark - Sihota - Dix - Etc wing.  The bar for my disapproval is high.

 

[cupper]

>Why did Baird quit in such a fashion? Or McKay? Or the others who have taken a walk in the past few months? They think the leadership has set course for the rocks and tied down the wheel.

The pension rules change is a simpler explanation.  To that we can add the fact that most of the people involved had reached the end of the typical length of service of a parliamentarian.

I can't buy that explanation with regards to McKay. Having met him several times in his pre MP days, I think a better explanation is there was no progression for him as long as Harper was in the leader's seat.

 

[Harrigan]

I think the more pertinent question is: does anyone really important really care any more?

I know we care, and so does Gen Vance, of course, and Jason Kenny cares too (and he, Kenny, is pretty important) but my question remains: does anyone really important really care any more?

Back in June of 2012 the prime minister (who is really important) sent a letter (presumably drafted by the Clerk of the Privy Council, who is also really important) to Defence Minister Peter Mackay (who is pretty important) telling him to cut some fat from the "administrative" side ~ people (including those in HQs) and some real property, too. The minister, presumably advised by his CDS (then Gen Walt Natynczyk, six months later it was Gen Tom Lawson), decided to ignore the "guidance" from the really important people in the centre and, now, we have the current mess.

What I find interesting is that nothing happened ... My guess is that Prime Minister Harper did care, but not enough to fire his MND; but, seeing that his minister and CDS didn't care enough, he, Prime Minister Harper, moved on to other, more pressing matters. I suspect we you the CF had a window of opportunity to secure the prime minister's attention and they, the MND and CDS et al screwed the CF the country by placing the wants of a few admirals and generals over the needs of the organization and the government.

I don't believe that any Canadian prime minister since Louis St Laurent has actually cared about the military ~ and M St Laurent only cared to the extent that the CF was doing, efficiently and effectively, the role he had assigned them in his quest to make Canada a "leading middle power." (Prime Minister Trudeau cared, in his own, way: he actively disliked the military ~ seeing it as a mindless tool of nationalism, his "great evil" in society, and he mistrusted the people in it, including the most senior Francophomnes. M Trudeau's dislike was principled, not personal.) I do not believe that Prime Minister Harper ever really cared, but he was willing to, and did invest some political capital in DND ~ that letter was important to him and to DND ~ but when he got no return on his investment he turned his attention to more fruitful endeavours.

Well, I assume the PM doesn't read this website, so my question was aimed more at us, not at him. 

I don't disagree with your subsequent comments, but I am interested to know if people think the restraints placed on reducing the size of the CF and closing unnecessary bases will be eased post-election, regardless of who is in power.  I know of many within the CAF who would much rather have closed a base than cut O&M year after year. 

dapaterson has provided two examples that I probably agree with.  Goose Bay seems a no-brainer.  Shilo seems a reasonable choice, though the negative impact on the local economy would be far greater there than Edmonton, which plays a factor.

Harrigan

 

[Kilo_302]

>2008-09 recession has been the weakest (by far) of any Canadian recovery since the Depression. A uniquely weak recovery, not the fact that Canada experienced a recession at all, helps explains the Harper government's poor economic rating.

That is what you get from weak minds, or minds determined to hide inconvenient facts.  Most countries experienced uniquely - or uncommonly - weak recoveries since the 2008-2009 recession.  Canada's recovery has been remarked upon at various points in time since the recession as being one of the stronger ones relative to other nations.

Yes but being "remarked upon" is not the same as hard data. The fact is we are not recovering as fast as we could be, and this in a large part due to government policy. Jim Stanford is not what I would call a "weak mind," though you probably would disagree with him on many things.

http://thetyee.ca/News/2015/07/31/Unifor-Report/

Economist Mike Moffatt of Ontario's Mowat Centre, an independent think tank, reviewed the report and said it holds up to scrutiny.

Moffatt said the figures in the report are accurate, but more context would help explain why the economy has performed poorly.

"They were kind of selective in what they chose to report," Moffatt said, suggesting the authors could have analyzed more categories favourable towards the government, like household wealth. "That's a mild issue with it, but overall a lot of the more obvious economic indicators have been rather poor over the last eight or nine years, which this report points out."

Moffatt added the number crunching and raw data in the report was "fantastic."

'Misplaced' emphasis on austerity

Stanford said the 2008 financial crisis doesn't wash as an excuse for Harper's performance because the other nine governments ranked had their own challenges, such as 9-11 and the Korean war.

The difference, he said, is that the current government's "misplaced" emphasis on austerity has slowed the recovery from the 2008 recession.

 

[Edward Campbell]

What Jim Stanford, and many economists, especially on the left, want is more and more spending. They note, correctly that stimulus can create (temporary) jobs and alleviate some of the effects of a recession.

Other economist take a longer view and believe that frugality is necessary to strengthen the economy for the long term.

You will not be surprised that I, being a utilitarian (the greatest good for the greatest number, and all that) favour the second course of action.

First: I believe that some unemployment and pain is good for a growing economy, there needs to be a "pool" of willing workers to allow new industries/businesses to grow.

Second: I do not oppose borrowing (bonds) to finance infrastructure maintenance and replacement ~ sewers, water mains, roads, transit systems and bridges, airports, seaports and so on, but not arenas or even public housing. The bonds must be long term, the life of the infrastructure and some roads and bridges and airports and so on ought to have some user fees.

Third: I vehemently oppose even a single new dollar for any social programme, and that includes child care benefits.