Mulcair Doesn't Rule Out F-35 Purchase

quizzical wrote:

i don't agree. i think the position the Liberals hold is semantics just like the comment won't work with Harper.

Please explain. The Liberals are saying there would be no damage -- apparently the NDP is claiming there would be. I am saying that if you consider what is possible with the savings the Liberals are right there would be no damge -- just a different set of benefits derived from a different investment.

Now this used to be the NDP position until Trudeau agreed with it.

Please explain?

Sean, I'd say you were just pulling numbers out of the air, except you don't have any numbers - just the assumption that after having gone one for years this is somehow still a zero sum game.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I am saying it is curious to ask someone else to please explain when you have offered nothing to base your own claim on - just an assumption that this will all balance out evenly.

... and my other point - that the F-35 debacle has already gone on for some time, and has cost money and time.

 

And when did Trudeau take his noble and principled stand against the war machine? Right after this: 

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/michael-byers-the-f-35-is-now-...

Trudeau has had an ecomic team hard at work for over a year. There is no doubt that this was part of the conversation and General Andrew Leslie would certainly have raised it in his capacity as Trudeau's advisor on military issues. It's quite possible the article prompted the announcement but so what? It's still a smart choice. 

6079_Smith_W wrote:

...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.

There is no contract, therefore, there would be no loss of contract. There would be losses because the Canadian government anted up $10 million to get a seat at the development table.Canada also agreed to another $100 million or so to stay at the development table, but again, that is not a contract to buy. There is no contract to purchase these aircraft (thank the lord for small mercies).

6079_Smith_W wrote:

...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.

There are no disgruntled bidders because the Harper circus made this a sole-sourced procurement. If anything, other manufacturers would be happy about the situation. Particularly Boeing, in that if the boneheads in charge of this ridiculous procurement actually go ahead and buy fighter aircraft that we don't need, they will most likely buy the Super Hornet.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

...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.

Oh, it's run it's course all right. Each of the three parties that may form the next government know full well the F-35 'deal' is dead. It is dead, dead, dead, and has been since the sadly fired Kevin Page called the Conservatives to account for their bozo bonanza.

Once more with feeling. Canada does not need fighter aircraft. There is no way we could defend ourselves against any opponent that actually has the capability of attacking us. As I pointed out before, the only country in the world that could attack us from the North is Russia. They haven't, and they're not going to. The only other country in the world that we have to worry about is the USA, and unfortunately their military capability is so far above anything we could mount that it doesn't pay to waste time talking about it. We could, for a modest sum, using a Canadian produced aircraft, have the capability of radar monitoring the northern part of Canada, and the coastlines, for that matter. That would be enough under international law to maintain that territory as ours. It would also give us a capability of handling emergencies should they arise.

So far, with our tin drum airforce, we've managed to kill a few civilians in Lybia and Syria, and I think we destroyed a dump truck in Iraq (wonder what that mission cost?). Canadian purchase of extremely expensive fighter aircraft is insane. If you drove around town and shovelled money off the back of truck you'd have a better return. And more happy voters.

And watching the politicians squabble over this idiotic (no, it far worse than idiotic but I can't think of a word) procurement when they all know it is dead and gone makes me wonder what the fuck we bother voting for.

i went to the Thesaurus to find some more appropriate terms. Pick one:

Quote:

foolish, crazy, stupid, dumb, daft, insane, lunatic, senseless, foolhardy, inane, fatuous, loopy, crackpot, moronic, imbecile, unintelligent, asinine, imbecilic, braindead, harebrained, dumb-ass, halfwitted, witless...

or use your own

6079_Smith_W wrote:

There are contracts, actually:

The clear implication of your prior post was that Canada had signed a contract to purchase the F-35. That is not true. As noted by your own post below, American companies have signed contracts with Canadian firms to supply bits and pieces for the F-35. Unless those contracts were contingent on Canada buying the F-35, it is the USA companies than can't cancel.

Quote:

As of December 2014, 33 Canadian companies have won US $637 million in contracts for both F-35 production and sustainment, according to industrial participation tabled in Parliament by Industry Canada. The same document estimates that over the 40-year lifespan of the aircraft, aerospace firms in this country could receive a total of $10.17 billion.

"If, in fact, the Canadian government were to decide not to select the F-35, we will certainly honour the contracts that we have here with the Canadian industry, but our approach in the future would be to try to do business with the industries that are in the countries that are buying the airplane," Orlando Carvalho, executive vice-president of aeronautics at Lockheed Martin, said in a 2013 speech in Montreal.

So it's clear that no existing contracts are at risk. Future contracts, in other words, contracts that do not exist, with a possible value of $250 million a year would be lost. Of course, all that and more would be gained by sourcing aircraft in Canada. Meantime, the aerospace industry in Canada had $27.7 billion in direct revenues in 2014. That means the loss of "possible" contracts, if amounting to what Carvalho said, would be less than 1% of total direct revenue per year. In the real world, where the contracts would be a significantly smaller amount than Carvalho suggests, it would barely be noticeable.

But you're doing a good job re-iterating Harper's position on this issue. Given there's been a few firings lately, you could ask him for a job.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

...If there was an open tender, there would be bidders. Presumably one of them might be Lockheed Martin.

And while the article calls Harper's claim it will crater the aerospace industry "baloney", outright cancellation is clearly not risk-free, and a definitive statement that there will absolutely be no consequences is similar processed meat.

You've already posted an article by Michael Byers that said the costs for the F-35 were well above what the government was willing to pay. Unless you have information that we could buy some of Lockheed-Martin's junk at fire sale prices, they wouldn't be in the running.

And what do you mean by 'outright cancellation'? There is nothing to cancel. You can't cancel a contract that doesn't exist.

And who made the 'definitive statement' that there will be 'absolutely no consequences'? Nobody. Just another of your straw men. You really should look into getting a job in Harper's campaign. He'd like the way you think.

Rev Pesky wrote:

The clear implication of your prior post was that Canada had signed a contract to purchase the F-35. That is not true.

Maybe you should have asked what I meant instead of making assumptions. Again, I said nothing about any contract. My actual concern (as I said) was how the contractor might take Trudeau's statement as prejudice, rather than a fair assessment. Again, Mulcair raised all the same concerns, about the machine, the deal, and about Harper's handling of it. But signed contracts or not, how this is dealt with does have an effect on negotiations and dealing with those companies in the future

Quote:

And what do you mean by 'outright cancellation'? There is nothing to cancel. You can't cancel a contract that doesn't exist.

A bit pedantic, don't you think? Many of the headlines refer to cancellation, and Trudeau uses the term in this press conference (around 1:40).

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-election-2015-trudeau-scrap-f35-h...

Quote:

And who made the 'definitive statement' that there will be 'absolutely no consequences'? Nobody. Just another of your straw men.

Let's see.. Trudeau blows off valid concerns about jobs, says there will be extra money on the table. And now that the fervor is dying down a bit people are starting to remember another election promise:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2015/09/22/ghost-of-sea-king-replacement-ha...

The fact that Trudeau is downplaying those real concerns, and just assumes there will be a saving, rather than additional costs, because a cheaper deal will fall out of the sky, is evidence that perhaps Mulcair has a point.

Quote:

But you're doing a good job re-iterating Harper's position on this issue. Given there's been a few firings lately, you could ask him for a job...

You really should look into getting a job in Harper's campaign. He'd like the way you think.

Sorry sweetheart, but I have had worse shit thrown at me, though not usually in such a repetitive way.

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

Now this used to be the NDP position until Trudeau agreed with it.

I thought the NDP position had to do with opposing it being sole sourced.  Layton for example wasn't against the F-35 per se but saying an open process should deterimine it. That was Layton's position.  That's not what Trudeau is saying.

Hunky_Monkey wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

 

Now this used to be the NDP position until Trudeau agreed with it.

 

I thought the NDP position had to do with opposing it being sole sourced.  Layton for example wasn't against the F-35 per se but saying an open process should deterimine it. That was Layton's position.  That's not what Trudeau is saying.

Maybe that is the position today but the NDP position has been that this is a huge amount of spending that would be better directed to higher priorities. The program was a failure of process and should be scrapped and the plane is inappropriate to Canada's needs.

This is one of the higher ticket Conservative priosities that must be scrapped to afford a more progressive agenda.

That said Canada may require a more modest plane to patrol its airspace.

Nowhere has the NDP ever before suggested that this plane might be the right plane and the right type of spending -- just with a better process.

JacK Layton wanted fighter jets? That's news to me.

I have no respect for any party or leader that wants to make Canada a warrior nation. Peace keeping and defence of our borders is all I want to support when it comes to military spending (and of course decent pensions and benefits for those who serve in our military). Mind you, the costs of benefits paid to veterans are far more reasonable when your military isn't involved in wars.

ESQUIMALT, B.C.—The Canadian military should concentrate on peacekeeping and not making war, NDP Leader Jack Layton said Friday.

And he said that means scrapping the $16-billion F-35 jet fighters deal along greater attention to Canada’s naval needs.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2011/04/08/canadian_military_should_r...

jjuares wrote:

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.

It will get me nowhere with Sean. That ship has sailed. I said it because for years he has been critiquing the NDP's insufficient use of social media and has also critiqued individual events from the perspective of voter engagement or perspective.

Shortly after Trudeau became leader I emailed Mark Garneau and recieved a reply that indicated my message had been read. I don't know that he responded personally, I imagine they have aides, but I was pleased to see the reply within 24 hours of being sent. Being able to vote as a supporter considerably increased my sense of commitment as I had helped to select a leader of a party for the first time and I was grateful for that opportunity. I felt heard even though I am not a member of the Liberal party. 

This is not the first time Sean's efforts to communicate with the party has been rebuffed. Sean also recognizes that marketing is even more important than policy. I think he has a better understanding of the average voter. He is right that a barrage of weak attacks will backfire or simply be ineffective. 

Mulcair is still highest on the best PM polls by alot. I thought people didn't trust the NDP on the economy, but I saw polls which indicated otherwise a while back. So if it isn't the economy, and it isn't Mulcair, what is it? Policy? I doubt it. That leaves the campaign. 

And it’s working. Until Sept. 15, every poll but one put the NDP ahead of the Liberals. Since then, every poll but one has the Liberals ahead of the NDP. The Liberal message might not make a whole lot of sense, but at least it’s a message. Whereas the NDP seems to have responsibled itself into a near-stupor.

Watching the leaders’ debate, I thought Trudeau looked terrible: shouting, interrupting, reeling off talking points, plainly out of his depth. No doubt he turned off a lot of voters — those who’d already written him off. But the type of voter the two parties are fighting over may be less interested in which leader is more knowledgeable about the economy than which one’s more irate about it. Who knew Angry Tom would be outscowled by Sunny Justin?
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/andrew-coyne-liberal-message-m...

Aristotleded24 wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I think that all the parties suffer from the same thing: unquestionning acceptance by their supporters and a failure to understand the value of specific well placed and quality criticism to the development of their policies and direction of their campaigns.  They surround their communications people with partisans that will accept anything rather than real people who will call them on garbage. They also suffer from the desire to mound more criticism on their opponents rather than to make sure that the quality of that criticism is high. It is the quality of the criticism of your opponents rather than the quantity that makes it effective.

You've just described the Manitoba NDP to a T.

I attempted to describe all the parties everywhere in Canada.

This is why so many people say F-it and don't vote.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I am saying it is curious to ask someone else to please explain when you have offered nothing to base your own claim on - just an assumption that this will all balance out evenly.

... and my other point - that the F-35 debacle has already gone on for some time, and has cost money and time.

 

And when did Trudeau take his noble and principled stand against the war machine? Right after this: 

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/michael-byers-the-f-35-is-now-...

 

Not curious. I was just saying your language was so scrambled I have no idea what point you were making or asking. Fine if you want to leave it that way.

You are delivering a question and I don't know what it is.

From this it seems that you are taking issue with my contention that there is no point assuming a loss  by not doing the project becuase this assumes that there is nothing better that we can invest $50 billion dollars in that would provide the same benefit in spin offs. If that is the case I disagree that I woudl need to provide proof of what other options are. The issue I raise is that people look at the loss in spin-offs without considering that this required an investment that can be put to something else.

No, I cannot be specific becuase there is no specific alternative on the table. I can say that there are many alternatives in terms of projects and investment and to suggest there is nothing better to do than invest in a program that is mostly going to the US is not something I think needs debating.

What needed to be said is that you cannot consider the loss without considering what could be done with the savings of $50 billion dollars that can now be spent elsewhere -- and entirely in Canada.

You want more? Go to the US and look at the US defence for the program -- all the jobs it will provide there that we would be investing in. Invest this $50 billion in Canada on Canadian industry and yes we get more than the table scraps we get from an American program. At the very least you have to acknowledge the math is not as simple as (x=value of the spin-offs) but instead the loss would be x-y where y is calculated as either what else we could do with $50 billion dollars or what we consider to be the opportunity cost on the investment.

As I stated the spinoffs are a rebate or return on investment -- to fail to consider what is invested and the cost of that including what else it could have done when considering the loss of spinoffs through cancelation is ridiculous.

When you consider the total, it is reasonable to argue there is (or arguably may be) no net loss to Canada since there is no plan to take the $50 billion and just throw it in the Centennial flame.

I am no Liberal or friend of Trudeau but this point is obvious.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

...Sorry sweetheart, but I have had worse shit thrown at me, though not usually in such a repetitive way.

I wasn't 'throwing shit'. I was merely pointing out that your position on the issue is precisely the same as that of Harper. And your dodging and weaving would be just the sort of style he would like.

However, if you want to distance yourself from the Conservatives on this issue, why not clearly state why Canada should go ahead with the F-35 procurement?

On the other hand, if we want to discuss the topic, there is this:

http://www.nationalnewswatch.com/2015/09/23/pentagon-official-casts-more...

Quote:

The Pentagon's top acquisition official says the Canadian supply base is an essential part of the program and will remain as such, even if the country does not buy the aircraft.

Doesn't exactly jive with what the the representative from Lockheed Martin said, but both undercut Harper's claim that a cancellation will "crater" the Canadian aerospace industry.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

but rather Harper's claim about the consequences of cancelling the F-35, and the perspective from Washington.

 

I'd rather we didn't buy the F35s but one major problem is spare parts. If we go with updating the CF 118s then we're going to discover spare parts for those are more and more obsolete and we will need to be searching got obsolete parts in foreign countries and be at the mercy of exchange rates and exorbitant price gouging.

Kinda like the story about Canadian service members searching for ship parts on Ebay if I recall correctly.

Chin up!  I'm sure they'll be back the next time you need scorn heaped on you.

Well I don't care, and I think it is a bit odd to bring it up out of the blue.

It's a human thing, terrytowel.  A donkey has its head stuck in the fence and you feel like you should do something,

terrytowel wrote:

Then why respond?

What I don't care about is keeping tabs on who drops in and out of the conversation, and imagining possible motives.

I don't think anyone was saying anything at all bad about you before you decided to bring that up out of the blue.

Are we done?

Normally I try to steer clear of "gotcha" thread titles and "gotcha" commentary (well unless it is an opportunity to see if I can make Maysie blow coffee out of her nose)... but hell, if I am really being missed I can jump back in.

If you require any further explanation, I would strongly suggest going back and reading post #73 - I believe any "meanness" on my part is fully explained there.