Topic: Veteran groups seek to influence the 2015 vote

[PuckChaser]

There are 2 things wrong with this campaign:

1. The opposition had years to introduce any veterans legislation they wanted as a private member's bill, which would have been political suicide for the Tories to filibuster or quash. They didn't, and these ABC dudes are being used by them with no concrete promises other than "trust us, we're better".

2. They've tied in all veterans with their campaign, from a profession that is required by law to be apolitical. Instead of campaigning to bring veteran issues to the forefront of the campaign, they've instantly alienated 30-30% of the voting population who vote Tory against their cause. If they came out and said "We're upset with the current government's false promises, and the opposition parties' failure to act or provide concrete policy statements to fix our issues. We want the shameful treatment of our vets as a main campaign issue." They'd get much more broad, all-party support, and very likely have much more veteran/serving member support as it is.

As well, stating their personal appearance isn't an issue, glosses over the fact that the veterans they seek to unite put great stock in one's personal appearance and professional turnout. How many times have to you just tuned out an officer because s/he looks like crap? If they're too lazy to form a proper beret after X years in the CAF which required them to do it, I'll be just as lazy and tune them out, regardless of how good a deal they struck with X party to help us out.

[Occam]

There are 2 things wrong with this campaign:

1. The opposition had years to introduce any veterans legislation they wanted as a private member's bill, which would have been political suicide for the Tories to filibuster or quash. They didn't, and these ABC dudes are being used by them with no concrete promises other than "trust us, we're better".

Do you even look before you make these wild claims?  https://openparliament.ca/politicians/peter-stoffer/

C-633 - died on the order paper.
C-572 - died on the order paper.
C-472 - died on the order paper.
C-447 - died on the order paper.

Sorry, I only searched for 3 minutes and on one MP's website to find those.  I'm sure you won't mind me not wasting any more time dispelling that myth.

2. They've tied in all veterans with their campaign, from a profession that is required by law to be apolitical. Instead of campaigning to bring veteran issues to the forefront of the campaign, they've instantly alienated 30-30% of the voting population who vote Tory against their cause. If they came out and said "We're upset with the current government's false promises, and the opposition parties' failure to act or provide concrete policy statements to fix our issues. We want the shameful treatment of our vets as a main campaign issue." They'd get much more broad, all-party support, and very likely have much more veteran/serving member support as it is.

Sorry, only the CAF is required to be apolitical.  Your average veteran retired from the CAF can do whatever he/she pleases politically.

There are going to be people who are going to vote Tory come hell or high water, regardless of what you tell them.  These people are not the target of the ABC campaign.  Their target is people like me, who voted Tory in the last three elections, but is open enough to realize I may have made a mistake.  I consider myself moderate right - and the CPC left me standing in the dust on their way to extreme right wing status when they got their majority in the last election.  There are a lot of people like me who have jumped ship on the party, and it's going to bite them in the butt.  If you wander over to Erin O'Toole's Facebook page, you'll get the impression that everything is rosy in Veteran land, and this flurry of pre-election activity to shore up the gaping holes in the NVC is much less about sincerely caring about veterans, and more about vote-buying.

As well, stating their personal appearance isn't an issue, glosses over the fact that the veterans they seek to unite put great stock in one's personal appearance and professional turnout. How many times have to you just tuned out an officer because s/he looks like crap? If they're too lazy to form a proper beret after X years in the CAF which required them to do it, I'll be just as lazy and tune them out, regardless of how good a deal they struck with X party to help us out.

Still on about the beret.  Sigh...

[ModlrMike]

To contend that the CPC is an extreme right wing party is to completely misunderstand the political lay of the land.

[PuckChaser]

Do you even look before you make these wild claims?  https://openparliament.ca/politicians/peter-stoffer/

C-633 - died on the order paper.
C-572 - died on the order paper.
C-472 - died on the order paper.
C-447 - died on the order paper.

Sorry, I only searched for 3 minutes and on one MP's website to find those.  I'm sure you won't mind me not wasting any more time dispelling that myth.

Which of those bills were to create legislation for a convent between Veterans and the Crown? None. Which of them repealed NVC and brought back disability pensions? None. Which legislated that VAC disability awards be set to what a similar injury under WSIB would be? None.

Those 4 bills were small, incremental changes designed to die on the order paper to provide the illusion that they were doing something. If the NDP gave a  about veterans, where's Muclair's private members bill and giant press conference? Not there. Where's Trudeau's policy on veterans other than "we'll do better"? Not there.

I get it, you're pissed off at the CPC. I'm sure most of us think they could do a hell of a lot better. What you're clearly missing here is that nobody else has brought out good ideas on how to fix things, only platitudes and promises.

Still on about the beret.  Sigh...

Show up at a job interview for a bank position in ripped jeans and a mustard-stained tank top. Tell me then how dress and deportment isn't important.

[Jarnhamar]

2005-2006 VAC budget under the liberals was 2.8 Billion.
2015-2016 VAC budget under the Conservatives is 3.5 Billion.

[E.R. Campbell]

2005-2006 VAC budget under the liberals was 2.8 Billion.
2015-2016 VAC budget under the Conservatives is 3.5 Billion.

Fair enough, but $2.8 Billion inflated at 2%, year upon year, is $3.3 Billion so the real growth is very small.

[Brad Sallows]

People disappointed with the CPC performance and/or platform on this issue (or any issue) should bear in mind that there may be no alternative on the ballot which is "closer to the platform I like".  The NDP and LPC may be further away.

You can't execute a political fix from the outside.  You need to support the party most inclined to look favourably on your issue, and then work to obtain and exercise influence inside the party.

[milnews.ca]

You can't execute a political fix from the outside.  You need to support the party most inclined to look favourably on your issue, and then work to obtain and exercise influence inside the party.

And hope that said party, if it gets a majority, may have to do the right thing - unlike the last majority party.

[Tcm621]

My biggest issue with the ABC group is that it is punitive politics.  It's a case of they treated us bad so let's punish them.  That never leads to a positive change. For the idea that you should vote anyone but conservative to be positive you would have to presuppose there is a better option. The liberal screwed us,  so odds are they won't be better.  The NDP and the Green party would take on every look at the black smoke coming out of our ships and aircraft and decide cutting our military would really help combat climate change. So they are probably out unless we could convince them to replace everything on the basis of fuel efficiency and if we could convince them that veterans pensions are like social programs for heroin addicts we might get some traction there. (Hmmm... maybe I should vote NDP?)

So the ABC vote is unlikely to make a positive difference. A better plan would be to convince political party current and former military (and their friends and family) are a voting block worth appeasing. You want the various political  parties climbing over each other to get your votes.

[E.R. Campbell]

My biggest issue with the ABC group is that it is punitive politics.  It's a case of they treated us bad so let's punish them.  That never leads to a positive change. For the idea that you should vote anyone but conservative to be positive you would have to presuppose there is a better option. The liberal screwed us,  so odds are they won't be better.  The NDP and the Green party would take on every look at the black smoke coming out of our ships and aircraft and decide cutting our military would really help combat climate change. So they are probably out unless we could convince them to replace everything on the basis of fuel efficiency and if we could convince them that veterans pensions are like social programs for heroin addicts we might get some traction there. (Hmmm... maybe I should vote NDP?)

So the ABC vote is unlikely to make a positive difference. A better plan would be to convince political party current and former military (and their friends and family) are a voting block worth appeasing. You want the various political  parties climbing over each other to get your votes.

  I agree.

[George Wallace]

Tcm621

To back up your points:  We have two recent elections, Ontario and Alberta, where we saw punitive politics in play.  Look how they both turned out. 

[Tcm621]

Tcm621

To back up your points:  We have two recent elections, Ontario and Alberta, where we saw punitive politics in play.  Look how they both turned out.

I'm from BC.  It's the only way we do politics.

[Teager]

I'm pretty sure the Equitas lawyers also echoed what Tcm621 said. The fact that there both in BC might be a coincidence 

[Jarnhamar]

Fair enough, but $2.8 Billion inflated at 2%, year upon year, is $3.3 Billion so the real growth is very small.

Touche 

My biggest issue with the ABC group is that it is punitive politics.  It's a case of they treated us bad so let's punish them.  That never leads to a positive change. For the idea that you should vote anyone but conservative to be positive you would have to presuppose there is a better option. The liberal screwed us,  so odds are they won't be better.  The NDP and the Green party would take on every look at the black smoke coming out of our ships and aircraft and decide cutting our military would really help combat climate change. So they are probably out unless we could convince them to replace everything on the basis of fuel efficiency and if we could convince them that veterans pensions are like social programs for heroin addicts we might get some traction there. (Hmmm... maybe I should vote NDP?)

So the ABC vote is unlikely to make a positive difference. A better plan would be to convince political party current and former military (and their friends and family) are a voting block worth appeasing. You want the various political  parties climbing over each other to get your votes.

That's what I wanted to say, thanks.

These ABC guys are looking out for themselves and want to punish the conservatives; not strengthen our military in a national sense.  Voting ABC will degrade demoralize and damage our military.

[milnews.ca]

.... The liberal screwed us,  so odds are they won't be better.  The NDP and the Green party would take on every look at the black smoke coming out of our ships and aircraft and decide cutting our military would really help combat climate change. So they are probably out unless we could convince them to replace everything on the basis of fuel efficiency and if we could convince them that veterans pensions are like social programs for heroin addicts we might get some traction there. (Hmmm... maybe I should vote NDP?)

Military spending =/= veterans spending - interesting take on the pension/social pgms, though 

If anyone is interested ....

• Here's what the Conservatives have said about veterans since the election campaign started (statement attributed to MP, shared the day after the Greens).
• Here's what the Liberals have on their web site about veterans (no news releases yet, but a few statements through the year, and a party policy convention resolution on the "social covenant with veterans".
• Here's what the NDP have have on their web page about veterans (no news releases tracked post-writ yet - a few pre-election statements here, here, a petition and a 2013 paper outlining what should be done - attached).
• Here's what the Greens have said about veterans since the election started (statement attributed to party leader, first party to announce their platform after the writ was issued).

Not much said on the campaign trail yet, but there's still two months to go.

[Occam]

These ABC guys are looking out for themselves and want to punish the conservatives; not strengthen our military in a national sense.  Voting ABC will degrade demoralize and damage our military.

Be careful of blanket statements.  You make it sound like there couldn't possibly be people amongst the ABC campaign who are intimately aware of the damage being done to our military right now.  I can assure you that's not the case.

• Here's what the Liberals have on their web site about veterans (no news releases yet, but a few statements through the year, and a party policy convention resolution on the "social covenant with veterans".

Not much said on the campaign trail yet, but there's still two months to go.

Expect to see an announcement of note from Belleville tomorrow.

[Jarnhamar]

Be careful of blanket statements.  You make it sound like there couldn't possibly be people amongst the ABC campaign who are intimately aware of the damage being done to our military right now.  I can assure you that's not the case.

Bit lost friend, what are you saying?  That they know there is damage being done to our military and they are trying to sway the vote to parties which will further damage the military?
Or are you suggesting that the NDP and Liberals will strengthen our military?

[Strike]

Back to the uniform issue, there are some veteran organizations, like the Legion and the CAVUNP, specifically state in their charters that members will not be part of any political party or movement and will not misrepresent the involvement of these veteran groups in any such protests or party affairs by wearing the uniform of the organization.

These veteran groups do not support any one party over the other but, like the CAF, support the government in power no matter who that may be.

All that said, Mr Clarke has been featured prominently at protests while wearing the uniform of a service association, contrary to that association's charter, probably in an effort to make the general public feel that this veteran group is against the CPC.

It's actions like that which get my goat.

One could argue that the RCL is biased in that it hosts CPC delegates all the time. As a matter of fact, they host members of the current government. And many RCLs play host to local candidate debates and allow candidates from all parties access to their halls in order to show an unbiased front. At least, that's how my Legion does things.

[MARS]

Why the "uniform" matters?

Because this election...ANY election...is nothing more than a ******* sales pitch!!  We are 10 minutes in to the halftime show the Super Bowl, if you want to look at it tht way.  We have 20 more minutes of big time 'advertising' (dressed up as 'issues') to come!!

What, are you people new or something?  Y'all just wake up to the concept of an election campaign?!? 

It is sales.  24/7 for the next 9 weeks.  Nothing more and nothing less.  Which means every single aspect of the campaign, no matter where you stand, or what your cause is, must, by necessity, be designed to influence the actions (read:vote) of your target audience.  It is even evident in their damn slogan: ABC.  A ******* awesome, ideal, super kick *** slogan to be quite honest.  The best one out there. It is designed that way.  Why do you think ABC has so much more traction than ABH??  Give a Cookie to the man or Woman who came up with it.  Better yet, give em a job in sales or advertising if they don't already have one.

The fact that Jason Kenny is being the energizer bunny in the ethnic ridings, the fact that the Duffy trial Reconvened at this very moment, and that the witnesses who are being called are being called now...and every other thing that is happening is by calculated design.  Someone planned this.  And BZ to them!

There is nothing wrong with that - all of this is simply excellent tactics.  I would kill for a staff that could influence the battlefield as well as is being accomplished right now, on all sides. But I grow so tired of people pining for a discussions on 'serious issues'.  Save that for parliament. 

[Occam]

Bit lost friend, what are you saying?  That they know there is damage being done to our military and they are trying to sway the vote to parties which will further damage the military?
Or are you suggesting that the NDP and Liberals will strengthen our military?

Let's just say that having served through Mulroney, Campbell, Chretien, Martin and Harper, I find it difficult to fathom us doing any worse than the status quo.

Back to the uniform issue, there are some veteran organizations, like the Legion and the CAVUNP, specifically state in their charters that members will not be part of any political party or movement and will not misrepresent the involvement of these veteran groups in any such protests or party affairs by wearing the uniform of the organization.

These veteran groups do not support any one party over the other but, like the CAF, support the government in power no matter who that may be.

And many will argue that's what makes them largely ineffective as veterans advocates when dealing with a government such as the one we have now.

All that said, Mr Clarke has been featured prominently at protests while wearing the uniform of a service association, contrary to that association's charter, probably in an effort to make the general public feel that this veteran group is against the CPC.

It's actions like that which get my goat.

I had no idea that the Legion or CAVUNP had trademarked their navy blue and grey/UN blue and whatever blazer/pants combinations.  If there's more to it than that (such as wearing their cap badge or crests), then I'll agree with you.

One could argue that the RCL is biased in that it hosts CPC delegates all the time. As a matter of fact, they host members of the current government. And many RCLs play host to local candidate debates and allow candidates from all parties access to their halls in order to show an unbiased front. At least, that's how my Legion does things.

That's great, as long as it's national policy.  Either let them all have access, or none.

[Strike]

And many will argue that's what makes them largely ineffective as veterans advocates when dealing with a government such as the one we have now.

That's not the argument here and you know it, especially as some would say the same about the ABC groups.

I had no idea that the Legion or CAVUNP had trademarked their navy blue and grey/UN blue and whatever blazer/pants combinations.  If there's more to it than that (such as wearing their cap badge or crests), then I'll agree with you.

Again, you're not that stupid. You know there's more to it than pants and a blazer. In fact, here's a great example, with a big fat crest taken during an ABC protest last fall with CVA.

[Brihard]

The Canadian Association of Veterans in U.N. Peacekeeping has put out a comminique in direct response to Mr. Clark's parading about in blue blazer with their crest:

STATEMENT FROM THE PRESIDENT
Recently, a member of the Canadian Association of Veterans in United Nations Peacekeeping
(CAVUNP), dressed in our blazer and crest, has been making political statements. As a Canadian citizen, and
especially one who has personally defended its values at home and overseas, he has a right to do so – it’s
enshrined in Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

However, he does not, and cannot, speak for CAVUNP or its members. Article 7 of our Articles of
Continuation (as a not-for-profit organization) clearly states: “This Association shall be non-political and nonsectarian.”
While we work with partners, including the Government of the day, to address shortcomings in
assistance to Veterans in need at every opportunity, we do so without reference to political considerations or
positions.

Further, our experience in failed and failing states has given our membership a special understanding of
and appreciation for democracy and the duty to vote. We do not restrict our members, as individuals apart from
CAVUNP, from talking to candidates and questioning them on policies of interest to them, and encourage them to
vote as they see fit on election day. As individuals, there are no restrictions in this regard; however, as CAVUNP
members, we do not engage in political activities or comments.

As an Association of retired and serving Canadian military (Regular and Reserve), RCMP and civilian
personnel who have served on United Nations Peacekeeping Missions, the Association also welcomes those who
have served on other peacekeeping missions in which participation was sanctioned by the Government of Canada.
Its purpose is to bring together as members, serving and retired peacekeepers and other veterans of Peace Support
Operations who embrace the goals of peacekeeping and the objectives of this Association. Its accomplishments
have been many, across the spectrum from local to international, and it does so quietly, generally without fanfare.

That the statements of one member have been misunderstood as a CAVUNP position is unfortunate. The
individual is expressing an ardently held personal view, and it does represent the Association, its purpose, its
objectives or its leadership and membership. Please respect both the rights of the individual and the non-political
status of CAVUNP.

Thank you,

Yours in the service of peace,
Wayne Mac Culloch, CD
National President

[Occam]

Again, you're not that stupid. You know there's more to it than pants and a blazer. In fact, here's a great example, with a big fat crest taken during an ABC protest last fall with CVA.

I don't think that was an ABC protest, but that's irrelevant - I agree, he shouldn't be wearing anything uniquely linking him to something like the Legion or CAVUNP when those orgs have regs about being non-political.  That's something those orgs need to take up with him though - it's not an ABC issue.

I guess CAVUNP is another org I can cross off my list of groups I'd want to join, eh?   

[Tcm621]

Military spending =/= veterans spending - interesting take on the pension/social pgms, though 

If anyone is interested ....

• Here's what the Conservatives have said about veterans since the election campaign started (statement attributed to MP, shared the day after the Greens).
• Here's what the Liberals have on their web site about veterans (no news releases yet, but a few statements through the year, and a party policy convention resolution on the "social covenant with veterans".
• Here's what the NDP have have on their web page about veterans (no news releases tracked post-writ yet - a few pre-election statements here, here, a petition and a 2013 paper outlining what should be done - attached).
• Here's what the Greens have said about veterans since the election started (statement attributed to party leader, first party to announce their platform after the writ was issued).

Not much said on the campaign trail yet, but there's still two months to go.

I understand they are not always the same but they are closely related. And any veterans group that would screw the military to advance their own cause are straight up buddy ****ers and deserve nothing but scorn (and vice versa).

[Brihard]

I don't think that was an ABC protest, but that's irrelevant - I agree, he shouldn't be wearing anything uniquely linking him to something like the Legion or CAVUNP when those orgs have regs about being non-political.  That's something those orgs need to take up with him though - it's not an ABC issue.

I guess CAVUNP is another org I can cross off my list of groups I'd want to join, eh?   

Don't kid yourself. CVA and the 'Rock the Hill' crowd have been ABC in all but name since the outset.Mike, Sylvain et al have more of late made a bit more of an effort to keep their facebook page more celaned up, but for most of their existence there was little holding back a torrent of the usual anti-Conservative memes you find on any Canadian page that touches on politics. I credit Mike with his recent clampdown on that, but it's closing the barn door a tad late.