Redragon

Yeah I took Stats in University (albeit neither did very good or remember it fully) but the size, 18000 is just ridiculous. The reason the Canadian media take polls that are never higher than 2000 (more like 1500) people in size is that it is both inexpensive and accurrate. There is a margin of error of 2.5%, 19 times out of 20 with that sample size. Now going from a sample size of 1000 which is already fairly accurrate to one which is 18000 is weird because it increases the costs exponentially and it doesn't make it much more accurate (on a significant level). And the guy is right, 98% competency is just weird, if your trying to make it easier for the public to understand, at least post a mathematically correct number as a complement just so you have credibility. And there is nothing against the pollster, the numbers could possibly be correct and I wouldn't even care, the poll was taken back in Nov 11-16.

So each deployment of the aircraft carrier would require a quarter of our ships, a quarter of our manpower. What I was saying is, each deployment of a carrier would gobble up a huge number of resources that could be used elsewhere. Aside from Operation Apollo, most naval deployments consisted of only one or two ships at a time. That was sustainable, what happened in Operation Apollo isn't. The navy is exhausted. With the purchase of carriers, it is in my opinion that the navy would require to purchase additional frigates, at least 2-3. All this will take a lot of money, certainly not 1.6 billion extra a year.

The reason for the Australian armed forces being what they are is because of their geographical position. They're really not that far from the danger spots of the world, at least, not as far and safe as we are.

For me, I was supporting Conservatives until I heard about the new tax cuts he is promising. 58 billion dollars over 5 years? When I read that, I finally realized that he is either a liar or an idiot. Where are they going to find 58 billion dollars to give back, with the addition of increased spending on military, health, etc. where are they going to find that money? Considering the highest surplus that the federal government received was 10 billion I think in 2000. The Harris government prematurely reduced taxes to put money back in the peoples pockets. Result, cuts to services across the board. Now the Liberal Ontario government is left with a 5.6 billion dollar deficit and is facing more cuts and must establish health care premiums. This study concluded that the premature tax cuts by the Harris government will increase provincial debt by 30 billion dollars. http://www.ofl-fto.on.ca/ftp/tp3.pdfhttp:/....ca/ftp/tp3.pdf This is exactly what Harper is wanting to do.

As for the carriers, Canada cannot in the near future handle even one carrier. Each carrier would require a battlegroup of at least 2-3 escort ships and a replenishing ship. This means each deployment of a carrier would consume 25% of naval resources. Now think about all the stuff that you have to buy for the carrier, he wants to fill it with helicopters, now we're going to have to buy some new combat helicopters. All this plus 20 000 new troops, new equipment for air force and army, all for 1.6 billion in extra funding a year? Thats not nearly enough money. Even if Harper is talking about 1.6 billion in operation costs and not capital, that money still won't be enough to pay for maintenance, payroll, etc.