Wednesday, July 14, 2010

New Environics Poll: 3-pt Conservative Lead

Environics has a new poll out, showing a much closer race between the Conservatives and the Liberals than other pollsters are showing.Comapred to Environics' last poll at the end of May, the Conservatives have dropped one point and are now at 35%. The Liberals are up two and are at 32%.

The New Democrats are steady at 15%, followed by the Bloc Québécois at 9% (down one) and the Greens at 6% (down one).

Note that Environics does not prompt party names in their telephone polling.

The Liberals lead in Ontario with 38%, up three points. The Conservatives are down four to 36%, while the NDP is up one to 15%.

In Quebec, the Bloc is down four points to 37%. The Liberals are up two to 26% while the Conservatives and NDP are steady at 19% and 12%, respectively.

The Conservatives drop one in British Columbia but lead with 38%. The Liberals (up two) and NDP (up three) are tied at 27%, while the Greens are down four to 7%.

The Liberals lead in Atlantic Canada with 40% (down six), while the Conservatives lead in Alberta (59%) and the Prairies (43%). The Liberals and NDP have swapped eight points, to the Liberals' benefit, in the Prairies.

The Conservatives win 64 seats in the West, 43 in Ontario, 8 in Quebec, and 8 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 123.

The Liberals win 19 seats in the West and North, 51 in Ontario, 17 in Quebec, and 21 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 108.

The Bloc wins 49 seats in Quebec.

The NDP wins 12 seats in the West and North, 12 in Ontario, 1 in Quebec, and 3 in Atlantic Canada for a total of 28.

It is always interesting to see polls that are out of step with others, but then it makes it difficult to figure out what is exactly going on. That Environics doesn't prompt is a factor, and the 31% undecided number also plays a role. But there is nothing in this poll that is spectacularly wrong. Perhaps the only big difference is that Environics has the Liberals doing well in Ontario.

In any case, polls like this show that things aren't all death and darkness for the Liberals.

67 comments:

  1. Eric

    If you got that link I sent you to the CBC piece on this poll they brought out some interesting points re how the polling is actually done.

    I agree re prompting. Seems that if you don't the results are quite different ?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Yes, but the question is which is more correct.

    ReplyDelete
  3. This is the key part of the CBC Environics report:

    But the surveys suggest that depending on the specific
    questions and the methodology, differences arise in the level of
    Conservative support.
    The Environics poll suggests the Tories have a narrow
    three-point lead over the Liberals when respondents were asked which
    party's candidate they would vote for if a federal election were held
    today.
    The results of that poll were based on live telephone
    interviews and the question focused on choosing a party's candidate.
    But a recent EKOS poll, which suggested the Conservatives have
    a 10-point lead over the Liberals, used interactive voice recognition
    technology (IVR), meaning respondents punched their preferences into a
    keypad, rather than speak to an operator.
    The poll question also differed in that it asked party
    preference: If a federal election were held tomorrow, which party would
    you vote for?
    A Leger poll suggested the Tories had an 11-point lead over
    the Liberals. That poll was conducted over the internet and included
    the names of the party leaders in the voter intention questions
    alongside their party names.
    The Environics telephone poll of 1,918 eligible voters was
    conducted July 5-8 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.2 per
    cent 19 times out of 20.
    Full
    Report

    ReplyDelete
  4. I would go with the one which least influences the respondent I think.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Weird poll.

    The CPC number isn't unreasonable. Its the lower NDP number that seems a little strange.

    Jack Layton is far and away the most popular leader, much more so than in the 2008 election.

    Yet his party has gone down ?

    Subtract 3 from the Liberals and pass them over to the NDP and these results look realistic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "But the surveys suggest that depending on the specific
    questions and the methodology, differences arise in the level of
    Conservative support."

    Actually that's not quite correct. The difference in methodology seems to make no difference at all to Conservative support. Environics has then at 35%, Angus Reid has them at 36%, Ekos has 35%, Ipsos has 35% same, same, same. The prompting vs. not-prompting seems to have a much bigger impact on the Liberal and Green vote (and to a lesser extent the NDP vote).

    ReplyDelete
  7. BTW: Where is this Leger poll that the CBC story mentions?

    ReplyDelete
  8. 35-32-15
    adjust for house effects using Erics graph:
    36-29-17


    Not that far off the other polls.

    The Quebec numbers look better in this one for the federalists.. only 37 for the bloc. Although I am sure the liberals would dislike being adjusted back 6 points to 20%. and a tie with the tories in la belle province.


    And the best thing to come out of these non prompting polls.... is a more plausible green number.


    Does having a person on the other end of the line make push polling easier? Or is the ekos machine... where the inflections are always the same give a better sample? Do people try to impress a person more than a machine by telling them how nice and good and progressive they are??


    Probe research, federal voting intentions of manitoba:

    http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/federal-tories-still-no-1-in-manitoba-98396004.html

    ReplyDelete
  9. Its the lower NDP number that seems a little strange.

    Jack Layton is far and away the most popular leader, much more so than in the 2008 election.

    Yet his party has gone down ?


    I think Shadow that you may be making the classic mistake of thinking that the Leader is what the party is about and what voters are looking for?

    Given the levels of leader popularity that approach would have the NDP leading the polls. They aren't. The public is more interested in what the party is and stands for than who leads.

    After all Chretien wasn't overwhelmingly popular yet he got three majorities. See what I mean?

    ReplyDelete
  10. John left a comment for you in the last thread.

    Regards,

    Earl

    ReplyDelete
  11. One thing this Environics poll using Eric's projection does show is a definite coalition.

    Lib-NDP = 136
    CPC = 128

    No brainer.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Peter said: "I would go with the one which least influences the respondent I think."

    Hard to tell though, isn't it. After all, we're influenced when we go into the polling staion in that each ballot indicates the parties. And the election is followed by a good 5-6 weeks of constant bombardment by the parties. No poll question is going to duplicate that, of course, but an unprompted one isn't obviously more realistic than a prompted ont.

    I think the problem with the non-prompt approach is that lazy or tuned out voter may just pick the first party that comed to mind. Since the Grits and the Tories generally have a higher public profile than either the Greens or the NDP, that would explain why the latter do worse in these polls. On the other hand, if those lazy or tuned-out voters are unlikely to vote Greens anyhow, it would explain the plausible Green number.


    The flip side, though, is that unprompted polls may be effective at weeding out the non-voters. In this one, almost 40% of respondents either didn't know who'd they vote for or weren't going to vote. Although there may be a shy tory or two in the unknowns there, I'd suggest that most of the "don't know who they're going to vote for" people are people who won't know who they're going to vote for come an election too, and won't vote at all. In contrast with some of the prompted polls, you have response rates of 70-90 percent, which you just know includes a ton of people who aren't going to vote anyhow.

    ReplyDelete
  13. OT :
    Be thankful we don't live in the US. No Canadian political party or leader would sanction anything as hateful or as wrong as this:

    http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20100714/billboard-tea-party-controversy-100714/

    ReplyDelete
  14. I believe that when Ed Broadbent was leading the NDP, he was also the mos popular leader over his opponents, and the NDP, did reach a high water mark in the number of seats when he was leader.

    However, the NDP never did reach the heights of popularity that Ed Broadbent had personally.

    People may like and relate to a party leader, but that doesn't necessarily translate at the ballot box for their particular party.

    If polls teach us anything, it is to sometimes take them with a grain of salt.

    Nick Clegg, was also polling well in the UK, and so were the Liberal democrats polling better than they had in a long time, but they never did reach the number of seats that the polling was suggesting, in fact they lost seats.

    When the writ drops, and a campaign is in full gear that is when Canadians will tune into politics, and start to pay attention, and that is when things can turn on a dime.

    ReplyDelete
  15. "Soldiers with guns... In our cities... In Canada."

    We're not always that much better than our yankee cousins.

    Of course, that isn't to say that these sorts of dispicable smear tactics aren't utter loser tactics.

    ReplyDelete
  16. This poll obviously shows the positive impact Mr. Ignatieff is having on his bus tour.

    It has been a long time (Jan-Feb anti-prorogation rallies) since the Liberals have been above 30%.

    I wonder when on the tour Mr. Ignatieff will declare his intention to defeat Harper's Great Satan War Criminals and allow the country to elect him PM.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "This poll obviously shows the positive impact Mr. Ignatieff is having on his bus tour."



    "The telephone poll of 1,918 eligible voters was conducted from July 5 to 8 and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.2 percent nineteen times out of twenty."

    "-And we’re off! The first stop on the Liberal Express tour was the St. Albert Cheese factory---July 13/2010"


    Huh? poll is almost a full week before the bus tour. (are we starting a pool on how far they have to push the bus?) Complete with repairs on the first day and NDP menus... etc.

    I don't know if this tour is going to be a positive or as it is starting out for the leader a negative. But one thing is for sure.. it isn't showing in a week old poll.

    ReplyDelete
  18. The flip side, though, is that unprompted polls may be effective at weeding out the non-voters. In this one, almost 40% of respondents either didn't know who'd they vote for or weren't going to vote.

    In other words Carl you're actually saying the polls are actually useless? The more I watch here and then talk to people off the net the more I tend to agree.

    I don't think, based on observation, that in fact these polls are anywhere near correct.

    There is also the problem of where are they taken? And then we get:

    used interactive voice recognition
    technology (IVR), meaning respondents punched their preferences into a
    keypad
    ?? What keypad ?? On the phone while listening to a mechanical voice?? Hello ??

    1 for CPC
    2 for Liberals
    3 for NDP
    4 for BQ
    5 for Greens
    6 for Other

    Yeah right, that's gonna give anything like near accurate ??

    ReplyDelete
  19. Hey Barcs

    Try "SARCASM" !!

    That's what that was.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Carl i'd add Scott Reid's "kill him, kill him dead" or the picture of Harper getting assasinated on the Liberal website or Ignatieff hinting that Harper was demonic.

    And i'm sure our NDP and Liberals friends have a list of similiar quotes from the CPC side. I'd start off with that backbencher who suggested Ignatieff's caucus was going to physically assault him.

    I'd just add that what happened in Iowa was done by 200 cranks. It wasn't sanctioned by any political party or leader.

    Go to any rally in Canada and you'll see politicians with Hitler moustaches drawn on their face.

    Sorry Earl but i'm going to chalk your post up to the narcissm of minor differences.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thanks Barcs....

    I guess it was just the anticipation of the Bus tour that got the Liberals revved up.

    Any ideas why this poll was allowed to settle for a week (become outdated) before publishing?


    Maybe someone wanted a correlation between the bus tour and the surge in Liberal support.


    Have the CBC given up all pretense and decided to fight for their life in the open?

    ReplyDelete
  22. "I think the problem with the non-prompt approach is that lazy or tuned out voter may just pick the first party that comed to mind."

    Quite the opposite, I believe: people who don't like any of the parties, when prompted to pick one anyway, will tend to pick the one that they are least familiar with.
    However, such people are also the least likely to vote.

    So prompting voters with names of parties tends to inflate the scores for the least-well-known and newest parties.

    (Yes, a "prompts" you with names of parties, but only once you show up to vote.)

    ReplyDelete
  23. Carl: The flip side, though, is that unprompted polls may be effective at weeding out the non-voters.

    Definitely. The Green Party believes that getting voters back to the polls should be a major concern for all parties and that part of the solution is to improve the tone of Canadian politics. It's not just a Green thing. All national parties have proponents of this: Liberal Glen Pearson, Green Elizabeth May, Conservative Michael Chong and (every now and then) Jack Layton. The Bloc seem to walk more than talk; I can't think of a Bloc equivalent to any of the above, nor a Bloc equivalent to John Baird.

    If we can collectively move one number in the polls, this should be the one. It's not healthy for democracy and it's getting worse.

    In this one, almost 40% of respondents either didn't know who'd they vote for or weren't going to vote.

    Which isn't that far off the voting percentage from the last election. Suggesting that it's true as well as being scary.

    ReplyDelete
  24. "The soldiers in the streets" ad was cooked up in the Liberal war room, and was never even supposed to see the light of day.

    It was a failed ad, that got leaked to the media who ran with it.

    It was never supposed to even see the light of day, because even the Liberals realized how pathetic, and embarrassing it was after viewing it.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Wow, I thought it would take more than just one day for Ignatieff to seize the high ground. Let's see, he wants to raise the level of discourse, and he wants to talk policy.

    So after day 1, on the policy front, he wants to build more schools than prisons.

    On the discourse front, he's talking policy, while all the other parties are busy smirking about a bus. Perfect!

    ReplyDelete
  26. Shadow said...
    "Jack Layton is far and away the most popular leader, much more so than in the 2008 election.

    Yet his party has gone down ?

    Subtract 3 from the Liberals and pass them over to the NDP and these results look realistic."

    The Green Party is also more popular then they were in the 2008 election and other polls show their support much higher so should we also subtract 6 from the Conservatives and pass them over to the Greens?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Peter SaidL [refering to automatic prompted method of polling] "Yeah right, that's gonna give anything like near accurate ??"

    As opposed to a ballot that says:

    A Conservative
    B Liberal
    C NDP
    D Green
    E Marxist-Leninist
    F Rhino
    etc.

    My own view is that each polling methodology has it's flaws and weaknesses. They're not useless. We typically don't see poll results which are just crazy (greens getting 99% of the vote). They each give numbers that are credible and can give you a sense of trends or changes, at least once you've got enough of them.

    The difficult is trying to say which methodology better reflects voter intention. My suspicion, is that at any given moment in time, one may be better than the other (depending on what is going on with voters), but that no one methodology is consistently better than the others (and a few more elections of Eric doing his thing here and we may have enough data to test that proposition).

    ReplyDelete
  28. Once again the CPC fubars in extremis


    Mackay does the big announcement today about new supply ships for the Navy.

    The current bunch are way over age. Preserver, 40 years old is in dry dock for essential repairs. The Oiler is a year older.

    So we get 2.9 $billion allocated. But the designs wont be finalized for TWO years !! There is a possibility for a third supply vessel.

    This is CRAP !!

    We could go to Taiwan or Korea or China, get these vessels in less than two years for less money.

    Oh NO !!

    They have to be built here in our less than efficient yards by out less than efficient designers !!

    Give me a break. CPC = incompetence !!

    ReplyDelete
  29. Shadow:

    Those little issues I spoke of?

    The first has really hit the fan.

    This non-mandatory long form census. Really taking a kicking from all sorts of people including Don Drummond and a bunch of statisticians saying this is a MAJOR mistake.

    Will leave us without the information we require to set realistic policies.

    But it fits the CRAP Libertarian ideological agenda, eh?

    ReplyDelete
  30. Gee Peter, great ideas, building military vessels in China. Hmm, no, I don't see any problems with that.

    Military precurement takes time, that's the nature of the beast and no country is any different (at least not any country whose arsenal consists of more than a few thousand AK knock-offs picked up from the North Koreans). Heck, how many years did it take to get replacements for the Sea Kings (oh yeah, still working on it, thank you Mr. Chretien). You can't just walk into Joe's (or Lee's) warship emporium and order a new supply ship out of the catalogue.

    The HMCS Protecteur (which these ships are intended to replace), was ordered in the early 1960's, wasn't laid down until 1967 and wasn't commission until 1970. So why would we expect any different now? If you're going to criticize the Tories, maybe stick to reasonable criticisms.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Peter the census issue is less than ideal and i'd quite frankly like to see Tony Clement bumped to another file for a number of reasons.

    But the suggestion that this is going to ever become a political issue is laughable.

    Will their be a new facebook group ? Will our public broadcaster act as its cheerleader/promoter and give it hundreds of thousands of dollars of free advertising ? Will there be rallies attended by NDP campaign workers and professional protesters with slick signs ?

    Wait, i've seen this one before. Had a chuckle when I saw a quote from a Liberal saying the census issue is just like prorogation when the gov't thought Canadians wouldn't care about it but they really did.

    Newsflash. Canadians still don't care about prorogation, never did. Nor will they care about the census issue.

    Its only the elites who care. It'll have ZERO traction whatsoever. Pile it in with the other mini-scandals about abortion funding and the police response to the G8-G20.

    Turns out Toronto, Ontario, and Canada LOVED the G8-G20!

    ReplyDelete
  32. Canadians did and do care about prorogation, the G20, and abortion funding Shadow. There's been enough polls and protests to make that plenty obvious.

    I think you're purposefully confusing the ability of a party maintaining the support of a third of the population with the ability of a party to retain much larger degrees of support in the face of scandal. I don't require two thirds of Canadians to care about something before I say the country cares about something.

    Zero traction given the political realities; maybe. But Canadians don't care about any of this? Nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Carl: Gee Peter, great ideas, building military vessels in China. Hmm, no, I don't see any problems with that.

    From a national security point of view there probably isn't a problem with offshoring hull and powerplant. There aren't significant weapons systems on a supply ship. That leaves C4I which could be fitted separately.

    And having said that, the government is right to build these ships in this country. The replacement vessels are needed, but one or two years won't make that much difference. The benefits to our industrial base and our know-how of building at home are significant. What we really need is a plan that keeps our shipyards working at a consistent level over the long haul instead of in boom-and-bust mode.

    It's a good call. It's massively underspecified and may fall apart (again) but the direction makes sense.

    Want to throw rocks at the government on defence spending? The new fighter purchase is dumb to the extent of being crass. We're good for now with the recently-upgraded CF-18s. We're in a hurry to purchase the JSF (pardon me, a fighter still to be determined) because if we don't we'll never buy another crewed combat aircraft. An onboard pilot still has an edge over a UCAV today, but that edge is steadily eroding. By the time our CF-18s really need replacing, the replacement won't have a cockpit.

    So who's leaning on the government to buy? The Usual Suspects are obvious: the Forces (because Real Men have air under their butt) and Lockheed-Martin working with the Pentagon via the US government. Of course, Eisenhower called that grouping something different.

    ReplyDelete
  34. What evidence is there that ANYONE in Toronto "loved" the G8/G20??? I would say that the most ardent dyed in the wool Tories barely tolerated having it take place here. Everyone else thought it was an inconvenient waste of money that accomplished ZILCH.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Peter said...

    "So we get 2.9 $billion allocated. But the designs wont be finalized for TWO years !! There is a possibility for a third supply vessel.

    This is CRAP !!

    We could go to Taiwan or Korea or China, get these vessels in less than two years for less money."

    ----------------------------------

    So Peter, would you not also complain if they did have them built over there? The reason I ask this is you'd have an excuse to say that they are stealing our jobs. Is the point not to keep jobs going within our own country?

    ReplyDelete
  36. Wait, i've seen this one before. Had a chuckle when I saw a quote from a Liberal saying the census issue is just like prorogation when the gov't thought Canadians wouldn't care about it but they really did.

    Newsflash. Canadians still don't care about prorogation, never did. Nor will they care about the census issue.

    Its only the elites who care. It'll have ZERO traction whatsoever. Pile it in with the other mini-scandals about abortion funding and the police response to the G8-G20.

    Turns out Toronto, Ontario, and Canada LOVED the G8-G20!


    OOPS !! Looks like an overdose o0n the Kool Aid again !!

    ReplyDelete
  37. Michael:

    Is the point not to keep jobs going within our own country?

    What you and everybody on here has missed is that this is the SECOND announcement.

    They did this at least two years ago and said how much they would spend, $2.9 billion, and all the quotes came in higher. So what makes you think this time will be any different.

    It's a big blast of hot air for political reasons while they have no real intention of spending the money. It's just another twist on the EAP. Much noise, little action.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Peter said : "They did this at least two years ago and said how much they would spend, $2.9 billion, and all the quotes came in higher. So what makes you think this time will be any different."

    Why might it be different this time? Maybe because this time they're only proposing to order 2 ships, rather than 3 (although they'd have an option for a third) and it has been suggested that they're going to get the Navy to scale back their demands for what they want in the new ships (the proposed JSSs, last time out, were supposed to be able to fill multiple roles, making them more costly that specialized ships, and raising concerns that they might not be able to perform any role well).

    You know, it wouldn't hurt to read the stories you're talking about.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Why might it be different this time?

    Rather it's about support Mackay !!

    Stop drinking the Kool Aid.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Kevin you are aware that about 1/3 of Canadians have no idea what prorogation is right ? Probably the G20 or the abortion funding "controversy" as well.

    Of those who do even if we're looking at a 60/40 split that's still only 40% of Canadians who actually register an unfavourable opinion of those things.

    And if it doesn't lead to sustained losses for the government than i'd question whether Canadians actually care at all. Define "care" ? Usually when people care about something it influences their voting intentions.

    Of course, the people who usually "oppose" these things are generally not Harper supporters anyways. One has to question whether its just blind partisanship informing their decisions. Most of these issues tend to be manufactured.


    Now we know Harper's support went UP after the G8/G20 finished so clearly people liked what they saw. EKOS even had them going up in Toronto!

    ReplyDelete
  41. Funny how, in your view, reasoned comments based on reported facts constitutes "drinking the kool-aid".

    ReplyDelete
  42. It may be their second announcement, but they still chose to keep jobs in Canada. I fail to see the problem with that.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Funny how, in your view, reasoned comments based on reported facts constitutes "drinking the kool-aid".


    Yup, they sure do. This whole announcement thing is nothing but political grandstanding.

    DND is perfectly capable of negotiating a ship purchase without any political involvement. They've done it hundreds of times.

    Yet a chance for a political party to blow its own trumpet and you think that's OK?? It's nothing more than political sleaze no matter who the party.

    Knock off the Kool Aid !

    ReplyDelete
  44. but they still chose to keep jobs in Canada.

    You're making the dangerous assumption this deal will actually go through!!

    Be careful.

    ReplyDelete
  45. John:

    We're in a hurry to purchase the JSF (pardon me, a fighter still to be determined) because if we don't we'll never buy another crewed combat aircraft.

    Couldn't agree more. The JSF is a big boondoggle and vastly overpriced right now and when delivered, if it ever is, will be worse.

    Can you answer this question though? "who will we be using supersonic fighters against"??

    Seems to me there isn't any body out there any more since the Russian collapse back in 90?

    ReplyDelete
  46. This poll isn't at all surprising once you compare it to Éric's polling house leanings chart. Environics always seems to think the Liberals are way ahead of where everyone else thinks they are.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Peter: Can you answer this question though? "who will we be using supersonic fighters against"??

    The F-35 is the Joint Strike Fighter. It's also a ground attack aircraft as is the CF-18. (The Americans call their variant the FA-18). If you believe that we should be involved in engagements like Afghanistan, an attack aircraft (albeit not necessarily Canadian) can have a role to play. We also have NATO obligations that extend beyond our borders. Finally, the Russians are still probing our airspace defences with the occasional bomber. It takes something like a CF-18 or F-35 to shake a finger at them.

    Those are some of the commonly-offered reasons. If you disagree, I suggest you find somebody who isn't a Green Party member to debate with. I personally see a lot of technology driving doctrine instead of doctrine driving technology.

    ReplyDelete
  48. John:
    I personally see a lot of technology driving doctrine instead of doctrine driving technology.

    Yeah I absolutely agree. There is way to much of the "we can do it" instead of "do we need to" ?

    ReplyDelete
  49. ....
    census change canada Harper
    445000 google results.

    liberal express harper diesel
    (because the liberals are currently mesmerized by anything Harper)
    1,390,000 goggle results



    But you are right peter... The census thing... its really taking off.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Jet fighter boondoggle?

    How is it a boondoggle???? What overspending, misspending has happened?? Wouldn't it be nice to have a replacement in 7 years when the current F-18 needs replacing? Rather than like say the Sea king helicopters which outlived their lifespan by several years... and several lives.

    Why is it that you are so against the tories actually purchasing jets in a joint program that the liberals were part of starting up and funding??

    ReplyDelete
  51. against the tories actually purchasing jets

    I'm not. But what I do say is that the final contract must be based on an open bid system. This No Bid thing is absolutely wrong !

    ReplyDelete
  52. Barcs: Wouldn't it be nice to have a replacement in 7 years when the current F-18 needs replacing?

    Can you provide a link to a cogent argument that we'll need a CF-18 replacement in seven years, as distinct from a claim that they'd be nice to have at that point? What missions will the CF-18 be unable to perform in 2017?

    What roles will the replacement platform serve? By the time a CF-18 replacement is truly needed, which of these roles will be most effectively served by an aircraft with a pilot on board? (Again, please provide links to reputable, technical sources.)

    Lockheed-Martin is in a great hurry to book JSF orders because they see the door closing. The Pentagon knows that every foreign sale will reduce the cost of their own buy. Those aren't good reasons for Canada to have a last blast at Top Gun. That's true whether you believe in unilateral disarmament or getting the most effective weapons systems for our investment over the next two decades.

    ReplyDelete
  53. The CF-18 is beautiful plane, but our models were approaching obsolescence in the 1990s. They'll need to be moth-balled eventually.

    While, I suppose, we could consider not replacing them I'm not sure why we would do that. If we want to have an Air Force worth it's name, we need a fighter aircraft.

    ReplyDelete
  54. If we want to have an Air Force worth it's name, we need a fighter aircraft.

    Agreed but do we need this over-inflated, over-hyped, over-priced example?

    Or could we use the European model or even maybe a Russian plane? There is lots of choice once we are out from under this disastrous commitment.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Peter, which plane would you prefer?

    We have already invested hundreds of millions to help develop the Lightning II, so why back out now.

    That is why we get a discountof the sticker price (9 billion original sale for 65 planes, rather then 12 or so billion)

    Plus no other aircraft can match it. (except the F-22 in air-to-air)

    16 billion is a shocking number, but that is for a 20 year lifespan.

    The F-35 is worth the money... if we want a cutting-edge, multi-capable airforce.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Shadow,

    I've got to say that both prorogation, and the abortion thing were issues that bothered me, and not because I'm a Harper hater.

    Just because it hasn't changed my vote, doesn't mean it isn't an issue for me.

    Harper is fortunate that Iggy never tried (was unable?) to drag the Grits rightward fiscally, or the CPC might well be in deep doo-doo right now.

    My voting in the future for the lesser evil is not an endorsement of these policies/tactics.

    Ditching the long-form doesn't make any kind of sense either. It would be one stupid (paranoid)libertarian, that found that one anywhere near the top of their list.

    ReplyDelete
  57. census change canada Harper
    445000 google results.

    liberal express harper diesel
    (because the liberals are currently mesmerized by anything Harper)
    1,390,000 goggle results



    But you are right peter... The census thing... its really taking off
    .
    He is right actually, but you just have to cook the search differently. If you google:
    harper census
    you get 1,380,000 results, just 10,000 short of your first one.

    For both of your searches, look at page 10, you'll see non relevant results.

    Now try using some quotation marks:
    "liberal express" "harper diesel"
    and you get 349 results, while

    "census change" canada Harper
    gets 3200 results. And

    "census change" canada "Stephen Harper"
    and you get 1,860 results.

    Therefore, your point, based on flimsy evidence, is refuted by other flimsy evidence.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Peter Lockheed Martin are the only people who build fifth generation fighters.

    If we're going to do a once in a generation upgrade why on earth would be buy older, less effective models ???

    Additionally we've already spent a couple hundred million dollars developing this thing.


    This NEEDED to be sole sourced. Most military contracts in most advanced nations are ...

    ReplyDelete
  59. "census change" canada "Stephen Harper"
    and you get 1,860 results.

    Therefore, your point, based on flimsy evidence, is refuted by other flimsy evidence.

    ..............

    My point liberal supporter.... was that Peters assertion that it was a big scandal picking up steam was in error.... That Canadians and even the talking heads aside from a few from the far left didn't think it was real important.

    Thankyou for helping me prove my point.

    ReplyDelete
  60. John are you really suggesting we not buy fighters and wait for unmanned drones or something of the sort ?

    Don't those rely on satellite communication ? China, US, Russia, and India will be able to destroy satellites.

    And we're entering an age where EMP weapons will be more lethal than nukes.

    A manned fighter with hardened wiring seems like something worthwhile for us to have at all times.

    ReplyDelete
  61. John, Sorry don't have a link or paper on the subject of the planes.

    The 2017 number came from Liberal industry critic Marc Garneau, who claimed that the current F-18's were serviceable till then.

    But as Eric pointed out.. that would make them 27 years old.... How many people here still drive a car from 1983? How sure are you that it won't break down? How did that work out for the liberal express a couple days ago? What happens when a plane breaks?

    ReplyDelete
  62. Barcs: But as Eric pointed out.. that would make them 27 years old.... How many people here still drive a car from 1983?

    Not many, but we're talking aircraft, not cars. My neighbour's Cessna 180 is 45 years old. Hundreds of DC-3s are still in revenue service, 65 years after the last one was built. (That is not a typo.) The F-14 was in US service for 32 years; Iran still operates them.

    Assuming that airframe fatigue is properly monitored, the biggest concern is avionics obsolescence (where "avionics" has quite a broad scope in a combat aircraft). Our CF-18s have just returned from their latest upgrade. If necessary, they're good for a few more. That's the planned life cycle for a military aircraft.

    Shadow, it's late and I won't respond to your points but I suggest some internet research on UAVs and UCAVs. And EMP (which is a concern, but not in the way you think; we need replacement powerline transformers as insurance against solar storms). And for that matter, ASAT technology, capability and (most importantly) doctrine. UCAVs wouldn't have hit the big time if the listed weaknesses were real.

    ReplyDelete

COMMENT MODERATION POLICY - Please be respectful when commenting. If choosing to remain anonymous, please sign your comment with some sort of pseudonym to avoid confusion. Please do not use any derogatory terms for fellow commenters, parties, or politicians. Inflammatory and overly partisan comments will not be posted. PLEASE KEEP DISCUSSION ON TOPIC.