I may be alone in this (which wouldn’t be the first time), but I
don’t believe the federal Conservatives will suffer as much fallout from
their mishandling of the F-35 jet fighter purchase as is presently
being forecast.
There is no question that they botched it. Royally.
They bought into
the military’s argument that no other plane could possibly deliver the
capabilities of the F-35, and that Canada couldn’t get by with anything
less.
Whether they were duped in this by the F-35′s fans in the military
and the bureaucracy, or willingly went along is up for debate …
Still, the notion that the damage to the government will be deep and long-lasting strikes me as unlikely.
Defence and Minister Peter MacKay checks out the cockpit of the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter in Ottawa, in 2010.
I may be alone in this (which wouldn’t be the first time), but I
don’t believe the federal Conservatives will suffer as much fallout from
their mishandling of the F-35 jet fighter purchase as is presently
being forecast.
There is no question that they botched it. Royally. They bought into
the military’s argument that no other plane could possibly deliver the
capabilities of the F-35, and that Canada couldn’t get by with anything
less. Whether they were duped in this by the F-35′s fans in the military
and the bureaucracy, or willingly went along is up for debate.
They insisted the price would be lower than appeared likely, and
stuck by that price even as evidence mounted that it was large part
fantasy, mixed with a healthy dose of pure stubbornness. They adamantly
refused to share even the most meagre information related to the
purchase. Rather than share responsibility for the decision with the
military, they claimed it all for themselves, insisting again and again
that the F-35 was the right plane, that that there was no chance the
government would change its mind, that critics were unpatriotic wretches
with no respect for the needs of the country’s fighting men and women.
If you’d like a list of the damning quotes in that respect, the
opposition parties will be happy to supply one.
Still, the notion that the damage to the government will be deep and long-lasting strikes me as unlikely. For several reasons.
1. It assumes Canadians were deeply engaged in the issue, which I
doubt they were. It’s a big deal in Ottawa, but hardly the focus of
chatter in the coffee shops of the land. The economy, taxes, the job
situation, health care – those are top-of-mind issues. A plan to buy new
fighters over a 30- or 40-year period is deep down the list. I’d be
surprised in most voters know what an F-35 is… some next tax form,
perhaps, to go with the T-4?
2. It presumes Canadians expect prudence and efficiency when it comes
to large military acquisitions, when the opposite is more likely the
case. Voters have been conditioned by experience to assume that any
large-scale purchase of boats or planes will be a disaster. The term Sea
King has become a national joke. The
four submarines
the Liberals bought used from Britain in 1998 might as well be stuffed
with flowers and used as planters. Jean Chretien cancelled the Mulroney
government’s helicopter purchase 20 years ago out of pure pique, paying
$500 million in cancellation fees, and won two more majority
governments. I expect, for most Canadians, the shock would have been if
the F-35 purchase had gone ahead smoothly, on budget, and without
incident.
3. While the Tories look foolish for shooting their mouths off about
the merits of the F-35 and their determination to press ahead with the
purchase, the actual financial cost has been minimal. The figures named
in reports critical of the purchase – suggesting the final bill would be
$45 billion – triple anything the Tories were willing to own up to —
are all projected costs. That is: what the price would have been if the
purchase had been made. But the purchase hasn’t been made. Although much
bureaucratic time and expense has been taken up, bureaucrats are paid
one way or the other. In the end, the extra cost to the budget of the
Tories’ fling with the F-35 is minimal, certainly nothing as egregious
as Chretien’s $500 million in cancellation fees.
4. Canadians care when the government wastes money, but all the
Tories have really wasted in this instance is time and their own
credibility. Their refusal to entertain the slightest notion that they
might be chasing the wrong plane, and their habitual rubbishing of any
opinions to the contrary, has become a hallmark of the way this
government does business. If voters had harboured the illusion that the
Harper government was open, cooperative and respectful of its opponents,
the F-35 cancellation might come as a shock. But it has been in power
seven years; Canadians know how it acts. At most, this latest episode
may reinforce existing impressions.
5. As for the government’s reputation as economic managers. Again –
it didn’t buy the planes. It didn’t spend the money. Even the worst
figure unveiled yesterday — $45 billion over $42 years – works out to
slightly more than the annual CBC budget.
If the money had been
spent, which it hasn’t. “The economy”, to most voters, means their tax
bill and price inflation. If those remain in check, a non-purchase
involving X billions over X years becomes pretty much ephemeral.
I suspect Peter MacKay’s days as a credible minister are over. He
argued Wednesday that his concern for the troops got in the way of his
fiscal responsibilities. “I feel passionately about my obligation to
ensure the Canadian Forces have the best equipment to ensure mission
success – they assume unlimited liability.” That’s all very nice, but
ministers aren’t appointed to fall in love.
Other than that , I expect the opposition parties will treat the
climbdown like a blunderbuss they can aim at the government from now
until the next election. But the blunderbuss was never much good at
hitting anything.
National Post
Foreign Affairs Minister John Baird. (Reuters)
A photo posted to Twitter shows mixed martial artist Ray Elbe in hospital.
A woman who helped her boyfriend torture her ex-husband was a “gullible" and "easily-controlled,” a court has heard.
Actress Scarlett Johansson addresses delegates during the final session
of the Democratic National Convention in Charlotte, North Carolina
September 6, 2012. (REUTERS/Jason Reed)
U.S. President Barack Obama gestures as he delivers remarks on the
economy to employees at the Daimler Detroit Diesel plant in Redford,
Michigan, December 10, 2012. (REUTERS/Jason Reed)
