Conservative Defence Policy - 80,000 bodies

[Rick_Donald]

Stephen Harper is not Brian Mulroney nor are the new Conservatives the Progressive Conservatives. The Reform Party rose up out of distaste and frustration over Mulroney,Clark, Campbell and Turner, et al. The Reform,then Alliance were further fueled by Chretien and Clark to become a formidable power. Now through brilliant strategy the right has united under Harper and I strongly feel that they will not be follwing in the PC's footprints.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

The only thing I worry about the Conservatives is while they would probably be good for the CF, they would pretty much cut the Atlantic Provinces loose. For them I think the Canadian border starts at Ontario. Until Martimers hear otherwise I don't think they will do too well out here.

 

[Goober]

The only thing I worry about the Conservatives is while they would probably be good for the CF, they would pretty much cut the Atlantic Provinces loose. For them I think the Canadian border starts at Ontario. Until Martimers hear otherwise I don't think they will do too well out here.

You got that right.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Odd.  You would think a region of Canada that allegedly has a higher-than-proportionate representation in the CF would be interested in a healthy CF.

Notwithstanding the feasibility of the Conservative promise, which other party has promised to try to create several thousand new well-paid federal government jobs with full benefits, open to citizens from any region of Canada with no more qualification or advanced training than a high-school degree, in support of an agency that has not only the power to assist any region of Canada in time of difficulty, but also to promote Canadian values and human security abroad?

 

[Brad Sallows]

What does it mean, "cut the Maritimes loose"?  Have the Conservatives promised something to the rest of Canada that the maritime provinces will not receive?

 

[muskrat89]

For all the things I love about Canada, I feel our politics are a joke. I often think, politically, we are like the "biggest banana republic in the world". Patronage is (or was when I left) rampant, and even for low-level Government jobs, I was told to "call my MP" (or MLA for provincial jobs). I think having a recall procedure is a good idea. I think maybe that "career politicians" aren't the problem, as much as "career bureaucrats". These people don't change when the Government changes, but build little empires for themselves. The Cabinet Ministers, Deputy Ministers, etc., only know what these guys tell them usually. The priority of these bureaucrats is CYA, and keeping their little empires cozy.

It has always been mystifying to me why Canadians continue to tolerate it. Not only tolerate it, but thrive on it, to some degree. Maybe it's because the "silent majority" does indeed stay silent in Canada. I'm often defending Canada to my American friends (PC, socialist policies making the news, etc.) and I tell them that those aren't the views of most Canadians. That's our politicians. When they say "Well why don't the people do something about it?" I feebly mumble something about the intricacies of our political system, but all in all they are right. I think as a whole, Canadians like to grumble, but at the end of the day, we are complacent - and as long as neither of the 2 major parties are REALLY screwing us, nothing will ever change....

 

[Infanteer]

For all the things I love about Canada, I feel our politics are a joke. I often think, politically, we are like the "biggest banana republic in the world". Patronage is (or was when I left) rampant, and even for low-level Government jobs, I was told to "call my MP" (or MLA for provincial jobs). I think having a recall procedure is a good idea. I think maybe that "career politicians" aren't the problem, as much as "career bureaucrats". These people don't change when the Government changes, but build little empires for themselves. The Cabinet Ministers, Deputy Ministers, etc., only know what these guys tell them usually. The priority of these bureaucrats is CYA, and keeping their little empires cozy.

This paragraph just screams Robert Fowler....

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Brad....Stephen Harper and the Alliance...ooops I mean the onservatives have made it clear time and time again they have no use for the Maritime Provinces. Should they get in power (and its looking more and more like they will) then honestly I see things getting worse for the people down here.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I think I understand from where your perceptions originate; I've read Harper's remarks.  I am trying to challenge the flavour of your view.  What is the maritime perception:

1) The maritimes will be denied a fair share of federal spending?

2) The maritimes will be denied more than a fair share of federal spending?

I ask these questions because some of the comments I've read on the web and heard on TV allude to maritime worries that wealth transfers might be reduced.  Is that the maritimers' vision of Canada and their part in it - that the rest of Canada is a cow to be milked for their benefit?

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

I think I understand from where your perceptions originate; I've read Harper's remarks.   I am trying to challenge the flavour of your view.   What is the maritime perception:

1) The maritimes will be denied a fair share of federal spending?

2) The maritimes will be denied more than a fair share of federal spending?

I ask these questions because some of the comments I've read on the web and heard on TV allude to maritime worries that wealth transfers might be reduced.   Is that the maritimers' vision of Canada and their part in it - that the rest of Canada is a cow to be milked for their benefit?

Your last statement is the how most Westerners think of Maritimers. Contrary to popular belief out there, people here want to work but unfortunately call centers that are sponsored by the Feds don't cut it. The folks out here want actual jobs not goverment handouts. Harpers opinion seem to point that its the Maritimes fault that they don't have the powerhouse economies of Ontario and elsewhere and we should find our own solutions. All well and good but it does not solve anything for the people out here.

 

[Infanteer]

Your last statement is the how most Westerners think of Maritimers. Contrary to popular belief out there, people here want to work but unfortunately call centers that are sponsored by the Feds don't cut it. The folks out here want actual jobs not goverment handouts. Harpers opinion seem to point that its the Maritimes fault that they don't have the powerhouse economies of Ontario and elsewhere and we should find our own solutions. All well and good but it does not solve anything for the people out here.

If the main issue facing Maritimers is employment, is blame for poor figures being put on the government?  There are reasons beyond anyones control for why good jobs are lacking in an area (that whole invisible hand thing).

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

Oh Maritimers always blame the Liberals but fear Stephen Harper even more. Nor has he given any reason to them that their fears are unfounded.

 

[Brad Sallows]

That's the elephant in the room, isn't it?  People living in regions of high unemployment have basically four options:

1) Live frugally on what they can earn.

2) Move.

3) Vote for a party which will create busywork.

4) Vote for a party which will tax someone else to support them.

(3) is just (4) with less leisure time. If option (4) is chosen, what should be the perspective of those who are taxed?

I live where I do because it is convenient for work. I admit to being extremely lucky (my opinion) in that despite changing jobs twice and having my employers physically relocate office space three times, it continues to be a convenient location.  It is also an attractive location.  However, it is not my first choice of location (and no, I'm not thinking of the difference between my middle class neighbourhood and the British Properties area of West Vancouver).  The point - a lesson taught by my grandparents - is to live where the work is.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

That's the elephant in the room, isn't it?   People living in regions of high unemployment have basically four options:

1) Live frugally on what they can earn.

2) Move.

3) Vote for a party which will create busywork.

4) Vote for a party which will tax someone else to support them.

(3) is just (4) with less leisure time. If option (4) is chosen, what should be the perspective of those who are taxed?

I live where I do because it is convenient for work. I admit to being extremely lucky (my opinion) in that despite changing jobs twice and having my employers physically relocate office space three times, it continues to be a convenient location.   It is also an attractive location.   However, it is not my first choice of location (and no, I'm not thinking of the difference between my middle class neighbourhood and the British Properties area of West Vancouver).   The point - a lesson taught by my grandparents - is to live where the work is.

1)   Honestly though do any of us actually do that. I know we all try but most of us still have some sort of debt. I have credit card payments, mortgage, car payments etc like most North Americans so realistically all should follow that advice not just Maritimers.

2)   A lot do move but look at it this way when a large population from a depressed area it will only breed resentment in the area that those people move into. Is that really a solution? For some yes but not a couple of hundred of thousands of people.

3)   Is there such a party? Usually for Maritimers that is the party in power.

4)   Again thats the common view Maritimers think that Westerners have of them. Do you actually think we enjoy being from a depressed area?? If you do you have been reading too many Alliance opinions.

 

[Yard Ape]

Liberal defence platform:

Increase the Canadian Forces by 5,000 personnel, creating a new brigade and greatly enhancing Canada's capacity for peace support. This will boost significantly our ability to participate in multilateral operations that are consistent with our interests and values. It will enable our military to assume a bigger role in bringing peace, security and democracy to troubled nations.

The only thing the Liberal platform has over the Conservative, is that it commits to a fourth CMBG.  I hope to hear conservatives counter by promising the same.

 

[Ex Ranger Instructor]

I don't think that increasing the CF's numbers by 5000 would suffice to create a new brigade.   In addition, I think that the creation of a new brigade would be one of the most expensive undertakings that we could possibly commit to.  

Think about how many units there are in a CMBG:

3 x Infantry Bn
1 x Armoured Regt
1 x Arty Regt
1 x CER
1 x Field Amb
1 x HQ & Sig Sqn
1 x Svc Bn
Plus additional assets such as an attached Tac Hel Sqn, etc.

I don't recall what the full authorized strength of a CMBG is, but it would eat up a substantial amount of the 5000 pers increase all on its own.   That's without adding any new troops to any Army, Navy, or Air Force unit or formation that we already have.   Our current brigades are under strength.   In many cases they're short of equipment, as in the case of the units whose kit has been transplanted to create the manouvre training centre in Wainwright.   There is always a considerable debate about the economics of any acquisition project the Army undertakes, (i.e. MGS debate), and the costs of those kinds of projects absolutely pale in comparison to the cost that would be incurred buying enough new LUVW's, LSVW's, MLVW's, HLVW's, Coyotes, LAV III's, barracks, etc, to outfit a whole new brigade.   Any increase in manpower or kit should, in my opinion, go to bringing existing formations back up to strength, rather than going to start another brigade that would itself likely turn out to be just another paper tiger along the lines of the three we have now.

 

[Infanteer]

I think the existing three brigades need that 5,000 man infusion more than we need a fourth brigade.  And what the hell do we need an increase in our "capacity for peace support"?  Anyone can plop a company down in a PSO to drink coffee and watch the locals fornicate; we need to ensure we can deliver combat capable forces to the fight (eg: increased strategic mobility and support) so we don't have to leech off our allies everytime we decide to "assume a bigger role in bringing peace, security and democracy to troubled nations."

 

[Infanteer]

As for the Maritimes, maybe they could move towards getting out of the muck by eliminating all 4 of those provincial governments and having a region of 2.2 million people with less than half the land area of any other province under the direction of one administration; could probably streamline things.

 

[Ex-Dragoon]

That would probably work and I think it would solve a lot of problems but can you imagine all 3 provincial goverments agreeing to unification. That would be interesting in itself.

 

[Harris]

As for the Maritimes, maybe the could move towards getting out of the muck by eliminating all 4 of those provincial governments and having a region of 2.2 million people with less than half the land area of any other province under the direction of one administration; could probably streamline things.

Here Here.  I'd go for that.