Military Policy/Platform
- Thread starter Rohandro
- Start date
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 7,191
- Points
- 1,040
I believe it would have to be the Steroid Party. They will require a chin-up bar to be installed over the doorways of every building on every DND establishment and used by everyone passing in or out of a building.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 160
Rohandro said:
All 3 parties have their policy documents posted online for you to review, as well as their 2011 election platforms.
I'll summarize:
Conservative: support our military, support our veterans, right tools for the job, more tooth and less tail
Liberal: *ahem* Decade of Darkness
NDP: what military? Can't we just talk it out with bureaucrats?
Crispy Bacon said:
My answers in yellow.
To the OP, I suggest you look at all party platforms especially when we get closer to the election and decide which one is least likely to damage the CF. Their military platform/policies will be based on what is politically expediant at that time not necessarily what is best for the CF or the country.
- Reaction score
- 2,494
- Points
- 940
One may also wish to consider their platforms and voting history more broadly; while defence policies and procurement issues can be critical to a serving member, their non-military policies may prove to be equally or more important to an informed voter.Crantor said:
/stating the obvious
- Reaction score
- 2,494
- Points
- 940
Hence including...
Journeyman said:
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 12,782
- Points
- 1,140
Crispy Bacon said:
I don't trust any of them. Regional politics drives more military decisions than actual common sense and ethical behaviour does.
Witness Brian Mulroney's handing the CF 18 Maintenance contract to Quebec when the winning bid that was accepted was from Winnipeg.
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 180
Jim Seggie said:
And the Progressive Conservative Party got slaughtered at the polls and disappeared for good. That party was Liberal Lite.
OldSolduer
Army.ca Relic
- Reaction score
- 12,782
- Points
- 1,140
They did.Rocky Mountains said:
Also witness the Liberals cancelling the EH 101 at a cost of 500 million dollars in pentalties. As far as I know, there still is no replacement for the Sea King, which is now 50 years old.
- Reaction score
- 290
- Points
- 980
Jim Seggie said:
And that's all that anybody ever remembers about that.
The additional $800M that had already been spent has been forgotten, as has the loss of a couple of thousand quality jobs because of a guy who campaigned largely on the slogan "Jobs, jobs, jobs!".
- Reaction score
- 33
- Points
- 560
There are actually about 19 political parties registered with elections Canada, so in a theoretical sense, you actually have lots of choices. Most of the parties don't have much in the way of a military platform, although you might infer that the Libertarian Party would much prefer the Canadian Forces to be organized and equipped along the lines of the Swiss Citizen Militia on philosophical grounds (the role of the State is to protect the rights and property of the people, expeditionary forces need not apply).
Of course as a practical matter you really only have Canada's two major transformative parties to discover what basis they see as the role of the Canadian forces (or of any other idea or institution in Canada for that matter). The third party is a transactive party, so the only constant there is who is the highest bidder, and who gets sold? Since these parties have a combination of "Brand Name", large and well funded organizations and are incumbent, they are probably the only real alternatives for actually getting whatever part of the loaf you desire. For example, while I am philosophically a Libertarian, as a practical matter the closest party that shares some of my values and has the organizational ability to get elected is the CPC. (Reform was probably closer, but you can't vote for them any more...).
You should also look to more fundamental issues besides just "the military". Armed forces of any kind need lots of resources to operate, so if a party is proposing ideas which are counterproductive or harmful to the productive segments of the economy, then the Armed Forces will suffer as a result regardless of what the platform says. A coherent foreign policy is a must as well; Armed Forces exist to impose the will of the sitting government on opposing States or groups, but you don't want to be picking "enemies" who are either not a threat to our interests or that we are unable to impose our will upon. (If you do discover such an enemy, then you also have to be willing to explain to the public why you really need to "up your game").
So get cracking on those web sites and share your insights with the rest of us....
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=par&document=index&lang=e
Of course as a practical matter you really only have Canada's two major transformative parties to discover what basis they see as the role of the Canadian forces (or of any other idea or institution in Canada for that matter). The third party is a transactive party, so the only constant there is who is the highest bidder, and who gets sold? Since these parties have a combination of "Brand Name", large and well funded organizations and are incumbent, they are probably the only real alternatives for actually getting whatever part of the loaf you desire. For example, while I am philosophically a Libertarian, as a practical matter the closest party that shares some of my values and has the organizational ability to get elected is the CPC. (Reform was probably closer, but you can't vote for them any more...).
You should also look to more fundamental issues besides just "the military". Armed forces of any kind need lots of resources to operate, so if a party is proposing ideas which are counterproductive or harmful to the productive segments of the economy, then the Armed Forces will suffer as a result regardless of what the platform says. A coherent foreign policy is a must as well; Armed Forces exist to impose the will of the sitting government on opposing States or groups, but you don't want to be picking "enemies" who are either not a threat to our interests or that we are unable to impose our will upon. (If you do discover such an enemy, then you also have to be willing to explain to the public why you really need to "up your game").
So get cracking on those web sites and share your insights with the rest of us....
http://www.elections.ca/content.aspx?section=pol&dir=par&document=index&lang=e
