Conservative Platform Policies

[Harry]

How could anyone possibly believe Harper's promises to end the deficit

Tories vow to eliminate deficit early

Senate reform, end to party subsidies and new legislation to fight terrorism part of party platform released Friday

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadavotes2011/story/2011/04/08/cv-election-day14.html#

because:

What changed in the last 17 days?

In October 2008, Stephen Harper promised his government would “never” go into deficit.

In November 2008, the Harper government projected budget surpluses through 2013-2014.

In January 2009, the Harper government projected deficits through 2012-2013 and a surplus in 2013-2014. In October 2010, the Harper government projected deficits through 2014-2015 and a surplus in 2015-2016.

Two weeks ago, the Harper government projected a $300-million deficit in 2014-2015 and a surplus of $4.2-billion in 2015-2016.

Today, the Harper government projects a $3.7-billion surplus in 2014-2015 and an $8.2-billion surplus in 2015-2016.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/08/what-changed-in-the-last-17-days/

What an absolute disaster the Conservatives are when it comes to sound economic planning. All their projections are lies, lies, and more lies. Harper is on a mission to bankrupct the federal government, and if he gets re-elected he may well accomplish his goal.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Harry

[Harry]

What is this joke day at the Conservative corral? Show us the documentation Mr Harper because many of us don't believe it is worth the paper it is written on, if it exists at all that is.

Harper shoots down rocketing jet costs, says Canada's exempted

The most recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, issued Thursday, red-flagged concerns that the F-35 prime contractor did not have a system in place to "effectively track costs and control schedules."

The 52-page analysis also expressed concern at the estimated 10,000 design changes Lockheed Martin was expected to impose between now and 2016, when the aircraft is supposed to exit the development phase.

The respected U.S. budgetary watchdog warned that the F-35 may not live up to its billing.

Despite that, Harper insisted it was something the air force needs.

"I think it's in a way sad that the new jets have become an issue in this campaign," he said. "We've got our men and women in uniform up there flying airplanes that we know at the end of this decade are going to have to be replaced, and the thing we owe to them is to replace those airplanes."

The question of whether the country needs the stealth fighters was at the centre of an NDP defence policy released Friday in Esquimalt.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/harper-shoots-down-rocketing-jet-costs-says-canadas-exempted-119489069.html

[ToadBrother]

I can't believe the recent notion of Senate reform is still in there. It's unconstitutional. The provinces have to sign off on any change to the constitution, nature or term of Senators. The bill is at best, an unenforceable waste of paper.

[Saipan]

Show us the documentation Mr Harper

Are you international investor? They've seen all and keep bidding. Out dollar is already $1.04

[Tilter]

Are you international investor? They've seen all and keep bidding. Out dollar is already $1.04

All those things have to be wrong--- the dollar is falling, no prosperity for Canada, gloom # & doom if you don't elect Iggy.

He, fresh from the US, has that American ability to forecast economics and we all know how much better they have done economically in the last 4 years than have we. Besides that--- he is a TEACHER and they know everything they know about running a country.

[GWiz]

(My Personal Opinion) ANYONE that believes anything coming out of Harper and his crew of piRATeS needs their head read...

[Scotty]

What an absolute disaster the Conservatives are when it comes to sound economic planning. All their projections are lies, lies, and more lies. Harper is on a mission to bankrupct the federal government, and if he gets re-elected he may well accomplish his goal.

This is just delusional paranoid ranting without substance - or sanity.

Barring this recession, and the attempted coup by the opposition, the Conservatives might or might not have had a very small deficit, but likely not. In any event, no party can escape blame for the deficit since all three Opposition parties were demanding a huge incentive program - hysterically, as I recall.

[Scotty]

What is this joke day at the Conservative corral? Show us the documentation Mr Harper because many of us don't believe it is worth the paper it is written on, if it exists at all that is.

Let me tell you the story of the F-35. One day, the Air Force put it to McKay that they need a new fighter plane and he then put it to Harper. Now Harper knows about as much about fighter jets as I do, which is to say precious bloody little. So he says, fine, what plane do they want. The Air Force wants this plane, and produce a nifty report explaining how they have, under the Liberals, already contributed close to $200 billion to develop this plane. Fine, says Harper, present that to cabinet. Sounds like that's the plane we ought to buy, and I guess the Liberals can't complain since it was clearly the one they were planning on buying too.

And that's basically it. Of course, the Liberals, smelling political advantage, immediately began to attack the intended purchase. That caused the Tories to dig in their heels. Now they're committed to the plane no matter what.

If I was Harper, I'd explain it just that way, very offhand and casual, and then I'd shake my head and say, "Of course, they told us the price would be $75 million. If the price really is going to go up to double that or so maybe the cabinet would want to have another look at it under those circumstances. But we'll need reassurance or new cost estimates from the manufacturer and the Air Force.

But this is politics, so you know that positions which have any degree of uncertainty don't play with the 10 second sound bites the media devotes to each issue. So instead we get Ignatieff jumping up and down and screaming "Rolls Royce Fighter Planes!" over and over and Harper pointing at Ignatieff and saying he doesn't want to defend Canada.

Edited April 8, 2011 by Scotty

[GWiz]

Let me tell you the story of the F-35. One day, the Air Force put it to McKay that they need a new fighter plane and he then put it to Harper. Now Harper knows about as much about fighter jets as I do, which is to say precious bloody little. So he says, fine, what plane do they want. The Air Force wants this plane, and produce a nifty report explaining how they have, under the Liberals, already contributed close to $200 billion to develop this plane. Fine, says Harper, present that to cabinet. Sounds like that's the plane we ought to buy, and I guess the Liberals can't complain since it was clearly the one they were planning on buying too.

And that's basically it. Of course, the Liberals, smelling political advantage, immediately began to attack the intended purchase. That caused the Tories to dig in their heels. Now they're committed to the plane no matter what.

If I was Harper, I'd explain it just that way, very offhand and casual, and then I'd shake my head and say, "Of course, they told us the price would be $75 million. If the price really is going to go up to double that or so maybe the cabinet would want to have another look at it under those circumstances. But we'll need reassurance or new cost estimates from the manufacturer and the Air Force.

But this is politics, so you know that positions which have any degree of uncertainty don't play with the 10 second sound bites the media devotes to each issue. So instead we get Ignatieff jumping up and down and screaming "Rolls Royce Fighter Planes!" over and over and Harper pointing at Ignatieff and saying he doesn't want to defend Canada.

(pssst, $200 BILLION might be the cost if Harper gets his way, I wouldn't know about that, but the Liberals only put $200 MILLION up for the "opportunity to purchase" the JSF and without any other commitment to purchase... )

[Harry]

And maybe we don't even need these new fighter planes. Maybe the government should be enhancing and protecting our public health care system rather than buying more silly toys for the boys. Maybe Harper should be working on things Canadians want and need instead of this "The Ruskies are coming" warmongering crap.

[Saipan]

And maybe we don't even need these new fighter planes. Maybe the government should be enhancing and protecting our public health care system rather than buying more silly toys for the boys.

This it the very reason Canadians have traditionally greatest loses in wars, fighting with antique equipment. Nothing changed so far. Maybe now for the first time.

[Smallc]

This it the very reason Canadians have traditionally greatest loses in wars, fighting with antique equipment. Nothing changed so far. Maybe now for the first time.

WTF are you talking about? How many wars has Canada lost? There's very little in the way of old equipment in the Canadian Forces right now. I swear, I'm putting you on ignore.

[Saipan]

WTF are you talking about?

About things that are over your head. Like for example the .303 British bolt action (1888 technology) used as late as Korean War by Canadians against Chinese equiped by Soviet semiauto SKS's.

How many wars has Canada lost?

How many did Canada wage alone? Even in WW I Canadians were used by "sophisticated" British Officers as disposable canon foder.

There's very little in the way of old equipment in the Canadian Forces right now.

We even had to hitchhike to war on the US cargo planes. It took a week to get us to East Timor, our plane had to return several times as the giro compass didn't work. Then come the leaky subs British couldn't unload so they gave us that present to sink money into and still useless. All is improving only now under CPC. But now Ignatieff and Layton don't like that again.

Btw, the 303 British bolt action rifles were issue under Chretien to our Northern Defence, about 20 or 30 eskimos. Yes they gave them ammo too

Edited April 9, 2011 by Saipan

[Jack Weber]

This is just delusional paranoid ranting without substance - or sanity.

Barring this recession, and the attempted coup by the opposition, the Conservatives might or might not have had a very small deficit, but likely not. In any event, no party can escape blame for the deficit since all three Opposition parties were demanding a huge incentive program - hysterically, as I recall.

And Stevie 4 Questions could stood on priciple and stayed the course with his idiotic Throne Speech plans from 2008 after the election...

He did not...

For the sake of power,he pulled a "perogie" and then gave in to the Opposition demands...

And speaking of paranoid delusionsl ranting without substance...

Attempted coup???

[Jack Weber]

WTF are you talking about? How many wars has Canada lost? There's very little in the way of old equipment in the Canadian Forces right now. I swear, I'm putting you on ignore.

Do it...

Like no longer dealing with Ms. Saskatchewan,the silence is golden...

The buffoon you're unfortunately dealing with can't even speak properly or formulate a sentence in English...

And by the way,I just looked into his last ignored "statement...

Any Canadian of Convenience like him that would put down the soldiers that fought for this country's freedom,as he has describing the Canadian military in WW 1,is a low-life and undeserving of the citizenship he paid for...

Edited April 9, 2011 by Jack Weber

[Saipan]

Coup didn't pay off. Canadians frown on coalitions.

[bloodyminded]

Coup didn't pay off. Canadians frown on coalitions.

Why are some poeple calling it a "coup"?

A little knowledge of what Parliament is might dispel such foolishness.

[nicky10013]

Nice to see a platform where I can get things not after this election, but the next election. If there's any proof of how stupid Harper thinks Canadians are, it's basing all his promises on eliminating the deficit which is at least another election away.

[blueblood]

Nice to see a platform where I can get things not after this election, but the next election. If there's any proof of how stupid Harper thinks Canadians are, it's basing all his promises on eliminating the deficit which is at least another election away.

Yet its not as stupid as the opposition thinks the canadians are. Who would have thought that a politician would make election promises contingent on the books being in order? Do the left think that companies are going to continue operating the way they are today with higher taxes and thus higher expenses?

[Handsome Rob]

Nice to see a platform where I can get things not after this election, but the next election. If there's any proof of how stupid Harper thinks Canadians are, it's basing all his promises on eliminating the deficit which is at least another election away.

Not to suggest that I approve, but you would prefer a bunch of promises that can't be kept? Harper promising to show fiscal restraint, however honest it may turn out to be, has to be called an improvement.

[nicky10013]

Not to suggest that I approve, but you would prefer a bunch of promises that can't be kept? Harper promising to show fiscal restraint, however honest it may turn out to be, has to be called an improvement.

Promises of fiscal restraint from a guy who has promised it every year and has only increased the size of government? Every year and every budget, the press has said "Harper is saving the tough cuts for next year." Every year, the government has gotten bigger.

At least with what Ignatieff proposed, it's been costed. It's not increased spending, it's a reallocation of spending and considering the Liberals record on deficit reduction, I wouldn't write his promises off as not being able to be kept or the Liberals not being fiscally responsible.

The only government in the past 40 years to run a balanced budget and pay down debt was the Liberals.

[Harry]

Gotta love the smoke and mirrors.

Flaherty explains that extra $11 billion

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/04/08/flaherty-explains-that-extra-11-billion/

[Keepitsimple]

It's amazing how much distorted play the F35 issue gets - and I blame the Conservatives for not coming out with a more cohesive explanation. I've seen party reps bobble questions on the F35 time and rime again. Four major points are constantly missed:

1) The cost is divided into 2 parts - buying the planes...and ongoing maintenance. The government says it's $9 billion to buy them and $9 billion to maintain them over 20 years.

2) The maintenance costs result in no "net new" costs because we will no longer be maintaining the CF18's - the cost of which has been increasing because of the age of the aircraft. Although technically more advanced, 50% of maintenance is traditionally spent on engine maintenance - the CF18's have two engines, the F35 only one.

3) That leaves us with the actual purchase of the aircraft, a contract for which has not yet been siged and will not until 2014.

4) So......we're left with a purchase cost, starting in 2014 and probably spread over 10 years of delivery of a best case of $9 billion or less than $1 billion a year - probably starting in 2015!

Even if the cost are higher to purchase the planes - we're looking at a reasonable future yearly expenditure of about a billion a year to sustain our Air Force.

Edited April 9, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[nicky10013]

Yet its not as stupid as the opposition thinks the canadians are. Who would have thought that a politician would make election promises contingent on the books being in order? Do the left think that companies are going to continue operating the way they are today with higher taxes and thus higher expenses?

They did it before perfectly fine especially considering our rates are already competitivey low. Corporate taxes don't create jobs. Show me proof. I work for the largest insurance company in Canada and we're currently already sitting on $800,000,000 in pure cash. That extra 2% is going straight into dividends for our stockholders - not into creating jobs. If we wanted to create jobs, we've already got the money to do it.

[nicky10013]

It's amazing how much distorted play the F35 issue gets - and I blame the Conservatives for not coming out with a more cohesive explanation. I've seen party reps bobble questions on the F35 time and rime again. Four major points are constantly missed:

1) The cost is divided into 2 parts - buying the planes...and ongoing maintenance. The government says it's $9 billion to buy them and $9 billion to maintain them over 20 years.

2) The maintenance costs result in no "net new" costs because we will no longer be maintaining the CF18's - the cost of which has been increasing because of the age of the aircraft. Although technically more advanced, 50% of maintenance is traditionally spent on engine maintenance - the CF18's have two engines, the F35 only one.

3) That leaves us with the actual purchase of the aircraft, a contract for which has not yet been siged and will not until 2014.

4) So......we're left with a purchase cost, starting in 2014 and probably spread over 10 years of delivery of a best case of $9 billion or less than $1 billion a year - probably starting in 2015!

Even if the cost are higher to purchase the planes - we're looking at a reasonable future yearly expenditure of about a billion a year to sustain our Air Force.

Even if the costs are double?

Furthermore, if we don't have to actually sign the contract until 2014, we have the time to go back and actually tender the contract without penalties, correct?