# The CF as a re-election prop (a split thread)



## McG (4 Jul 2015)

I read an article last weekend which claimed the Conservative government asked DND for a list of planned infrastructure spending that could be used as announcements in the lead-up to the election.  I don't know if this is true, but there have been a number of maintenance projects getting big announcements recently.  More recently, the National Post has called these announcements  out for how they maybe should be seen: preservation and not improvement of capability.

Mind you, it would be great to see a new truck announcement that simply preserves our lift capability at where it was two years ago.


> *National Post View: Basic military upkeep is nothing to brag about*
> National Post
> 30 June 2015
> 
> ...


http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/national-post-view-basic-military-upkeep-is-nothing-to-brag-about


----------



## McG (5 Jul 2015)

Lee Berthiaume is now picking up on the idea that the Defence Budget is currently being used to buy re-election votes.



> *The Gargoyle: Is the election the only war that really matters at National Defence?*
> Lee Berthiaume
> Ottawa Citizen
> 03 July 2015
> ...


http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/the-gargoyle-is-the-election-the-only-war-that-really-matters-at-national-defence


----------



## PuckChaser (5 Jul 2015)

Isn't it always? I mean the whole "Buy in Canada" gag is set up to win votes by dumping money into Canadian industries that may or may not produce the product we need at the quality we deserve.


----------



## Monsoon (5 Jul 2015)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Isn't it always? I mean the whole "Buy in Canada" gag is set up to win votes by dumping money into Canadian industries that may or may not produce the product we need at the quality we deserve.


Won't disagree there's a political component that makes it easy to sell to cabinet, but the whole "buy in Canada" gag is, from the military's perspective, about the strategic imperative to maintain at least a limited domestic defence production capacity that can be of use in time of crisis. Arguably, one of our key strategic capabilities is that of being a highly industrialized economy with an educated workforce; if we don't make an effort to leverage that as part of our defence strategy, we're assuming a lot of hidden risk.


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Jul 2015)

MCG said:
			
		

> Lee Berthiaume is now picking up on the idea that the Defence Budget is currently being used to buy re-election votes.
> http://ottawacitizen.com/news/politics/the-gargoyle-is-the-election-the-only-war-that-really-matters-at-national-defence


Good point - and this, as commentary ....


> *National Post View: Basic military upkeep is nothing to brag about*
> 
> Have the federal Tories really set the bar so low for what constitutes good government that they are compelled — psychically obligated in some irresistible way — to laud themselves even for so minor an accomplishment as swapping out a sewer pipe?
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jul 2015)

I know I'm repeating myself, but a major _political_ (highly partisan political) component has been a feature of our defence production/procurement system for nearly 500 years. It is wildly, irresponsibly impractical to think that you might remove it ~ I would go farther and suggest that _political management_, even micromanagement of the defence budget might even be a _Constitutional_ requirement.

          (See my comments in The End of the MCDS thread about Ernest Bevin doing battle with Lord Beaverbrook to _protect_ trade union jobs (and Labour votes) when, in the
           middle of a war, Beaverbrook wanted to streamline British shipbuilding.)


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Jul 2015)

ERC, I agree with you that defence production/procurement has always been, and is likely to remain political. That is the government of the day will either favour a friend of the party or will grant a contract to a region for reasons of political gain, etc. (Irving Shipyard anyone!).

However, that is quite different than political grand standing using the everyday operations and maintenance budget. That I have never seen before (at least to such an extent - I have seen the good'ol sign in front of a facility getting major repairs saying something like "7M$ for upgrade for the next century - your tax at work" type of thing ). 

And it is even worse when the actual serving members are forced (I cannot think of any thing else) and dragged in front of the camera just to look good for the ruling party and obviously for their electoral benefit. The CAF should under no circumstances  be involved in or even appear political*. Anybody remember what happened the last time the uniformed personnel tried to do something "electoral" for a politician? It was called the Somalia Scandal.

If you pair that with the alleged government action which prevents other parties Defence Critics ( and I would say any other member of parliament) from attending at bases to find out what the military is doing, it starts to look like the Harper government is thinking it owns the military as if they were its political pawns. It is time perhaps for the higher ups to do their job and tell the government to "Go Fly a Kite. Oh! And we will accept visits by ANY member of Parliament anytime THEY ask - since we see this as their right. Than you very much".

*: I was absolutely sickened earlier this winter when one of the ministers (can't recall which one) held a press conference in Halifax, on the occasion of an international defence conference, to announce some changes to Vet benefits. About a dozen of (mostly) seamen and a few soldiers in their DEU's had been dragged for no other reason than to provide "background" for him. These seaman had no reason to be at that conference, other perhaps than as support staff for some functions going on at the place. In any event, they had a job to do somewhere else from which they were dragged just to make the thing look good for a politician. Had I been the senior officer there, I would have halted the thing before it starts - reminded the minister that we are not his toys and these people have work to do; told the minister to hire actors at his own cost if he wanted background, but that they better not put a uniform on or else I'll have them arrested for impersonating.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jul 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> ERC, I agree with you that defence production/procurement has always been, and is likely to remain political. That is the government of the day will either favour a friend of the party or will grant a contract to a region for reasons of political gain, etc. (Irving Shipyard anyone!).
> 
> However, that is quite different than political grand standing using the everyday operations and maintenance budget. That I have never seen before (at least to such an extent - I have seen the good'ol sign in front of a facility getting major repairs saying something like "7M$ for upgrade for the next century - your tax at work" type of thing ).
> 
> ...




I agree with you, _but_ nothing sickened me more than a general, the CDS in fact, going on TV to _lie_ and blame his own people for the fact that the prime minister of the day didn't want to interrupt a vacation with his grandchildren to attend the funeral of a respected international leader ... that was in 1999.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I agree with you, _but_ nothing sickened me more than a general, the CDS in fact, going on TV to _lie_ and blame his own people for the fact that the prime minister of the day didn't want to interrupt a vacation with his grandchildren to attend the funeral of a respected international leader ... that was in 1999.



You mean when "Le p'tit gars de Shawinigan" could not make King Hussein's funeral because of the Army, when the seeing US President and four ex-president managed to do ti with all the security that entails!  Yeah, that made me sick too.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jul 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You mean when "Le p'tit gars de Shawinigan" could not make King Hussein's funeral because of the Army, when the seeing US President and four ex-president managed to do ti with all the security that entails!  Yeah, that made me sick too.




And that, as much, perhaps more than anything else, opened to the door to be CF being made into a partisan political prop. As is so often the case we have only ourselves to blame for all this.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jul 2015)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> You mean when "Le p'tit gars thug de Shawinigan" could not make King Hussein's funeral because of the Army, when the seeing US President and four ex-president managed to do ti with all the security that entails!  Yeah, that made me sick too.



TFTFY


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Jul 2015)

recceguy said:
			
		

> TFTFY



more like merde...


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Jul 2015)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And that, as much, perhaps more than anything else, opened to the door to be CF being made into a partisan political prop. As is so often the case we have only ourselves to blame for all this.



Again Mr C has nailed it. The same thing has happened with the RCMP when a certain RCMP Commissioner pretty much did what the ruling party wanted...whether it was ethical or not.


----------

