Tories turning attacks toward Layton, NDP

[Guest Derek L]

No, you obviously don't understand. DND gets funding the range of $20B per year. The mission in Afghanistan gets an addition $2B that is not part of DNDs budget. That money will not be there for DND when the mission ends.

Who determines that? Where is that 2 billion going? Other funding prioities perhaps?

Where would the Tories find ~1 billion in the entire government's budget, when they no longer require ~2 billion of said budget?

[Smallc]

Where would the Tories find ~1 billion in the entire government's budget, when they no longer require ~2 billion of said budget?

Well, that money really doesn't exist, since we currently have a deficit.

Edited April 23, 2011 by Smallc

[Guest Derek L]

Well, that money really doesn't exist, since we currently have a deficit.

So, with a combination of the A-Stain mission ending and the government realizing savings from that, added to the oppostions costing of the JSF, the Tories plan (started by the Liberals) to purchase the fighter in the 2015-2017 timeframe, will have a zero sum effect on the 2011 (or 2012,2013 etc) budget? If so, would you agree that the oppostions adds and talking points with reguards to the Joint Strike Fighter are then dishonest and should really make no difference on this years budget?

If the oppostion's 29 billion figure doesn't inculed the current cost of maintaince of the Cf-18 fleet, we may even see a very small cut in costs....

~80 CF-18 Hornets x two engines per vs 65 CF-35 Lightnings II x 1 engine per....I'm sure there would be some savings in a reduction of fleet size, both in terms of airframes and engines.......That is, if the oppostion parties have already factored these savings into their 29 billion figure.

Now if the debate is really over whether we need jet fighters, thats a completly different topic. I would add, if both the Libs and NDP feel we don't need combat aircraft, I find it odd that they both would support the current operation in the sky's over Libya. Kinda hypocritical.

Almost like the Libs/NDP are being dishonest when they attack the CPC on the JSF....

[Bryan]

Except for the fact it is a lie. All the links to the original article the ad cites are on the website go read for yourself. Is reading to hard for you?

The NDP site? We already know they're lying about it, why would I want to read more lies?

The ad is factual:

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20081130/conservative_budget_081130/

http://www.thestar.com/article/870962--hebert-duceppe-hands-harper-fresh-anti-coalition-ammunition

[Harry]

A Conservative ad that is factual - that's the best one I've heard today!

Edited April 23, 2011 by Harry

[Smallc]

So, with a combination of the A-Stain mission ending and the government realizing savings from that, added to the oppostions costing of the JSF, the Tories plan (started by the Liberals) to purchase the fighter in the 2015-2017 timeframe, will have a zero sum effect on the 2011 (or 2012,2013 etc) budget?

There is an escalator clause of 2.9% a year built in to the basic DND budget, but that escalator has been canceled for the years 2012 - 2014. The money that is saved from a less expensive Afghan mission will not be reinvested into DND, it will be used to lower the federal deficit and eliminate it early, whether the Conservatives or the NDP form government (the NDP has said that they are committed to the defence spending laid out by the Conservatives, less any Afghan mission. They both plan to balance the budget in 2016 - 2015. Only the Liberals plan to spend less.).

Edited April 23, 2011 by Smallc

[punked]

Looks like the Liberals are getting into the game. Now if they are going after the NDP they are now looking at not losing seats instead of gaining them. Ouch Poor Liberals.

Iggy the flip flopper or Iggy the Liar a few days ago said they wont attack the NDP. Wow what a leader he goes from one extreme to the other in 4 days because a poll says so. I am so tired of this guy.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/layton-takes-aim-at-ignatieff-but-grit-leader-wont-return-fire/article1990576/?from=sec368

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TV37nQyzqKA&feature=player_embedded

[cybercoma]

The Liberals making political decisions based on opinion polls? Inconceivable!

[Mr.Canada]

A Conservative ad that is factual - that's the best one I've heard today!

All Tory ads are based on facts and quotes pulled directly from the news and mouths of party members.

[cybercoma]

All Tory ads are based on facts and quotes pulled directly from the news and mouths of party members.

Except for the NDP one they just created.

[Guest Derek L]

There is an escalator clause of 2.9% a year built in to the basic DND budget, but that escalator has been canceled for the years 2012 - 2014. The money that is saved from a less expensive Afghan mission will not be reinvested into DND, it will be used to lower the federal deficit and eliminate it early, whether the Conservatives or the NDP form government (the NDP has said that they are committed to the defence spending laid out by the Conservatives, less any Afghan mission. They both plan to balance the budget in 2016 - 2015. Only the Liberals plan to spend less.).

I've never read that the savings post Afghaistian will not be reinvested into DND, do you have a source?

I'll go back to my earlier point, reguardless of who's numbers we use (Tories~15-16 billion vs Oppostions ~29 billion), if the jets are not being purchased untill 2015-16, at what time the budget is projected to be balanced, and will likely be in the Parliment that follows the one we're about to elect, why is the fighter jet purchase being brought up in this election cycle?

Also, why isn't the NDP opposed to the Tories shipbuilding strategy to replace the destroyers, frigates and supply ships (and add patrol ships) for the Navy? Thats projected to cost at least $35 billion.

It wouldn't be because he doesn't want to upset the people that will likely build and man them in the greater Victoria and Halifax ridings would it? (Most of these ridings are tight NDP vs Tory races)

Also, what are Jack's plans to replace the CF-18 Hornet?

I guess the NDP doesn't see any use in pandering to the voters in the ridings that will fly and build the F-35.....namely Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel (home to Pratt & Whitney Canada), Westlock—St. Paul (CFB Cold Lake) and Fort Worth, Texas (Lock-Mart final production line)

Can we agree that all parties create attack adds and that all parties attack adds, from time to time, have little fibs in them?

[punked]

I've never read that the savings post Afghaistian will not be reinvested into DND, do you have a source?

I'll go back to my earlier point, reguardless of who's numbers we use (Tories~15-16 billion vs Oppostions ~29 billion), if the jets are not being purchased untill 2015-16, at what time the budget is projected to be balanced, and will likely be in the Parliment that follows the one we're about to elect, why is the fighter jet purchase being brought up in this election cycle?

Also, why isn't the NDP opposed to the Tories shipbuilding strategy to replace the destroyers, frigates and supply ships (and add patrol ships) for the Navy? Thats projected to cost at least $35 billion.

It wouldn't be because he doesn't want to upset the people that will likely build and man them in the greater Victoria and Halifax ridings would it? (Most of these ridings are tight NDP vs Tory races)

Also, what are Jack's plans to replace the CF-18 Hornet?

I guess the NDP doesn't see any use in pandering to the voters in the ridings that will fly and build the F-35.....namely Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel (home to Pratt & Whitney Canada), Westlock—St. Paul (CFB Cold Lake) and Fort Worth, Texas (Lock-Mart final production line)

Can we agree that all parties create attack adds and that all parties attack adds, from time to time, have little fibs in them?

The NDP have a better Plan then the F-35s they are looking at building more ships so we can defend the arctic.

Edited April 23, 2011 by punked

[Bryan]

Except for the NDP one they just created.

Please. We all heard the tapes LAST election.

Tories release secret tape of private NDP meeting

A budding coalition between New Democrats, the separatist Bloc Quebecois and Liberals is an exercise in nation building, NDP Leader Jack Layton told his caucus in a conference call covertly recorded by the government.

"Nothing could be better for our country than to have the 50 (BQ) members out of 75 who've been elected in Quebec actually helping to make Canada a better place. We just approach it on that basis and say, 'We're willing to make that happen. Here are the things we're going to be investing in and transforming together.'

Listen in:

Coles Notes version for the lefty ADD crowd:

The full call is here:

To claim that there's anything even remotely untrue about the ad is just revisionist history. Dewar saw that the CPC were successful in getting an ad pulled, so he thought he'd try it. The difference is, in both cases, the Conservatives were correct, and the opposition was lying.

[punked]

Please. We all heard the tapes LAST election.

Tories release secret tape of private NDP meeting

Listen in:

Coles Notes version for the lefty ADD crowd:

The full call is here:

To claim that there's anything even remotely untrue about the ad is just revisionist history. Dewar saw that the CPC were successful in getting an ad pulled, so he thought he'd try it. The difference is, in both cases, the Conservatives were correct, and the opposition was lying.

Except the whole ad and its sources. No one isn't saying the Bloc and NDP weren't a part of coalition however the story painted by the Conservatives is a Lie, the source they quote Brain Top has come and said what they say is in his book isn't and it is a Lie. The whole ad is a Lie sorry buddy. It is all fact checked a sources on the NDP website. Your tapes don't mean squat they weren't even sourced in the ad. Sorry you are a liar.

[Bryan]

Sorry you are a liar.

That's the problem with the left. Lying is the only form of discourse they understand, so the facts confuse them, and they just assume the other guy must be lying too.

The ads is 100% fact. Denying it is 100% stupid.

[Smallc]

I've never read that the savings post Afghaistian will not be reinvested into DND, do you have a source?

I've never read that it will be (the budget doesn't show it):

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/first-premier/defstra/finance-eng.asp

These numbers have actually changed, and growth will not happen for the next few years.

[punked]

That's the problem with the left. Lying is the only form of discourse they understand, so the facts confuse them, and they just assume the other guy must be lying too.

The ads is 100% fact. Denying it is 100% stupid.

The ad is a 100% a lie. Nothing you have posted addresses anything the NDP say the Cons are lying about however the NDP does address everything the Conservatives say in the ad and breaks down why it is a lie piece by piece. So you can try to do the samething I promise you that wont be able to break down the lies the NDP point out about the ad.

[Guest Derek L]

The NDP have a better Plan then the F-35s they are looking at building more ships so we can defend the arctic.

I saw the policy release Jack did from Fort Rod Hill in Colwood(middle of Juan De Fuca riding and across the harbour from CFB Esquimalt & Victoria Shipyard), I was led to beleive from it, that instead of buying the F-35, he was going ahead with JSS project to replace the Navy's two 45+ year old, single hulled, supply ships. Nothing new here really, the project was started under the Martin goverment, and included in the Tories ship building strategy (which also includeds the Artic patrol vessels for the navy, the JSS, and the replacement program for the navy's 15 destroyers and frigates, a new polar five clas ice breaker for the Coast guard (CCGS John G. Diefenbaker) and many other smaller ships for the Navy/DFO/Coast Guard.

So all the NDP are doing, is to pick a small portion of the Tories plan (think they have budgeted ~3.5 billion for the three supply ships), cancel the CF-18 replacement and attack the Tories for replacing an aircraft that is already 30 years old?

If I'm not mistaken, Don't the NDP currently support the UN mandated, NATO enforced, and Canadian led no-fly-zone over Libya, that it's sole source mission is to protect civilians being strafed buy the guns of Libyian (Syrian flown) MIGS? Was the NDP opposed to CF-18 deployment in the 90s to prevent genocide in the former republic of Yugoslavia?

If the NDP isn't going to replace the current CF-18 Hornets (came into service in the early 80s), how would they, if they were to form government, respond to similar crisis in the future?

What about the NORAD treaty? If we don't replace the current CF-18s, eventually we won't have anything to keep our treaty commitments. If we don't defend our airspace, the Americans will. Do the NDP support handing over our sovereignty to the States?

How I see it, the NDP must do one of three things:

1. Cancel the CF-18 replacement, then ground the fleet when it becomes unable to fly

2. Keep running on the CF-18, which as I said is near 30 years old and approaching obsolescence, thus not only putting the nations intrests at risk, but the men and women that fly them.

3. Or replace the CF-18.

So what is the NDP planning on doing? (Besides attacking the Tories plan)

[punked]

I saw the policy release Jack did from Fort Rod Hill in Colwood(middle of Juan De Fuca riding and across the harbour from CFB Esquimalt & Victoria Shipyard), I was led to beleive from it, that instead of buying the F-35, he was going ahead with JSS project to replace the Navy's two 45+ year old, single hulled, supply ships. Nothing new here really, the project was started under the Martin goverment, and included in the Tories ship building strategy (which also includeds the Artic patrol vessels for the navy, the JSS, and the replacement program for the navy's 15 destroyers and frigates, a new polar five clas ice breaker for the Coast guard (CCGS John G. Diefenbaker) and many other smaller ships for the Navy/DFO/Coast Guard.

So all the NDP are doing, is to pick a small portion of the Tories plan (think they have budgeted ~3.5 billion for the three supply ships), cancel the CF-18 replacement and attack the Tories for replacing an aircraft that is already 30 years old?

If I'm not mistaken, Don't the NDP currently support the UN mandated, NATO enforced, and Canadian led no-fly-zone over Libya, that it's sole source mission is to protect civilians being strafed buy the guns of Libyian (Syrian flown) MIGS? Was the NDP opposed to CF-18 deployment in the 90s to prevent genocide in the former republic of Yugoslavia?

If the NDP isn't going to replace the current CF-18 Hornets (came into service in the early 80s), how would they, if they were to form government, respond to similar crisis in the future?

What about the NORAD treaty? If we don't replace the current CF-18s, eventually we won't have anything to keep our treaty commitments. If we don't defend our airspace, the Americans will. Do the NDP support handing over our sovereignty to the States?

How I see it, the NDP must do one of three things:

1. Cancel the CF-18 replacement, then ground the fleet when it becomes unable to fly

2. Keep running on the CF-18, which as I said is near 30 years old and approaching obsolescence, thus not only putting the nations intrests at risk, but the men and women that fly them.

3. Or replace the CF-18.

So what is the NDP planning on doing? (Besides attacking the Tories plan)

It is my understanding that they expending the plan to offer more building of Ice breakers and other ships that will help defend the arctic not just the replacement that Harper has offered of old ships. It is an expansion on ship building.

[TimG]

It is my understanding that they expending the plan to offer more building of Ice breakers and other ships that will help defend the arctic not just the replacement that Harper has offered of old ships. It is an expansion on ship building.

So they plan on getting the Canadian Air Force out of the business of flying fighters then?

[punked]

I saw the policy release Jack did from Fort Rod Hill in Colwood(middle of Juan De Fuca riding and across the harbour from CFB Esquimalt & Victoria Shipyard), I was led to beleive from it, that instead of buying the F-35, he was going ahead with JSS project to replace the Navy's two 45+ year old, single hulled, supply ships. Nothing new here really, the project was started under the Martin goverment, and included in the Tories ship building strategy (which also includeds the Artic patrol vessels for the navy, the JSS, and the replacement program for the navy's 15 destroyers and frigates, a new polar five clas ice breaker for the Coast guard (CCGS John G. Diefenbaker) and many other smaller ships for the Navy/DFO/Coast Guard.

So all the NDP are doing, is to pick a small portion of the Tories plan (think they have budgeted ~3.5 billion for the three supply ships), cancel the CF-18 replacement and attack the Tories for replacing an aircraft that is already 30 years old?

If I'm not mistaken, Don't the NDP currently support the UN mandated, NATO enforced, and Canadian led no-fly-zone over Libya, that it's sole source mission is to protect civilians being strafed buy the guns of Libyian (Syrian flown) MIGS? Was the NDP opposed to CF-18 deployment in the 90s to prevent genocide in the former republic of Yugoslavia?

If the NDP isn't going to replace the current CF-18 Hornets (came into service in the early 80s), how would they, if they were to form government, respond to similar crisis in the future?

What about the NORAD treaty? If we don't replace the current CF-18s, eventually we won't have anything to keep our treaty commitments. If we don't defend our airspace, the Americans will. Do the NDP support handing over our sovereignty to the States?

How I see it, the NDP must do one of three things:

1. Cancel the CF-18 replacement, then ground the fleet when it becomes unable to fly

2. Keep running on the CF-18, which as I said is near 30 years old and approaching obsolescence, thus not only putting the nations intrests at risk, but the men and women that fly them.

3. Or replace the CF-18.

So what is the NDP planning on doing? (Besides attacking the Tories plan)

It is my understanding that they expending the plan to offer more building of Ice breakers and other ships that will help defend the arctic not just the replacement that Harper has offered of old ships. It is an expansion on ship building.

[punked]

So they plan on getting the Canadian Air Force out of the business of flying fighters then?

No I think the idea was because they are switching to a more defensive stance that they would go with a much cheaper 4th generation fighter like a new fleet of super hornets, or move to the next stage of air combat and move into UAVs.

[Guest Derek L]

I've never read that it will be (the budget doesn't show it):

http://www.forces.gc.ca/site/pri/first-premier/defstra/finance-eng.asp

These numbers have actually changed, and growth will not happen for the next few years.

Thanks. From your link, scroll down to chart #3. The F-35 is covered under "new equipment", but I suspect most of the cost that gives us the 15/29 billion figure, will come from the readiness portion of the chart. (Training, Maintence)

I'd also factor in the personnal portion into costing, since there will be some savings in reducing fleet size from 80-65, and halving the amount of engines required (less aircrew, ground crew, maintainers).

[Vancouverite]

I don't see how the NDP can take support from the Tories - the two parties are on opposite sides of the spectrum. I can see the NDP taking votes from the Liberals, but not the Tories.

And that's why the Tories should not attack the NDP too much, because the NDP can never truly be a threat to a governing Tory government, but they can hurt the Liberals, who have been forming the government for much of the last century.

[Bryan]

The ad is a 100% a lie. Nothing you have posted addresses anything the NDP say the Cons are lying about however the NDP does address everything the Conservatives say in the ad and breaks down why it is a lie piece by piece. So you can try to do the samething I promise you that wont be able to break down the lies the NDP point out about the ad.

Nothing you have posted has shown the ad to be untrue. The coalition planning between Jack and Gilles are a fact. We have the tapes, I gave you the links.