It's in the election platform.
I could hardly believe what I was reading on Paul Well's site tonight. The entire entry must be read to appreciate the actions of the current government.
The gist of the issue, if you are too lazy to actually click on the link and spend the 2 minutes, is that Saskatchewan's Lorne Calvert spoke to Wells complaining that little has been done in preparation for the health care meetings in a couple weeks. For instance, Calvert said regarding waiting time reduction that "I’ve not heard a very clear description, if any, about precisely how the national government proposes that we should do that….It’s just lacking." Wells writes that "The PMO told Le Devoir that Martin’s position is clear enough, having been spelled out in the Liberal election platform." Thanks guys.
But now I sit here thinking that it is just too simple to believe that the feds are really that bad. There must be a tactical explanation to all of this - but what?
First to come into my head is the possibility that the Earnscliffes don't want any 2 to 20 year 'fix' of our health care system. A fix in September means the press will talk about other things for the next 10 months instead of health care. Talking about anything other than health care is bad for the Earnscliffes.
Same-sex marriage - the court's reply and the inevitable vote is going to come out in the fall but could more health care talks keep the headlines down a bit?
Environment - the Earnscliffe's haven't had a plan for years - why would they want to start now and give the opposition something to attack
Military, missile defence, Quebec - yeah right.
For each of those issues - should something arise - having ongoing health care talks puts pressure on the opposition to be 'constructive' and not bring down the government. What's the only issue the Earnscliffes would want to run on in an election? - the defenders of health care.
So, the "sit down for as long as it takes" might be meant to take as long as it can. It's the best way for the Earnscliffes to keep control of the PMO.
The gist of the issue, if you are too lazy to actually click on the link and spend the 2 minutes, is that Saskatchewan's Lorne Calvert spoke to Wells complaining that little has been done in preparation for the health care meetings in a couple weeks. For instance, Calvert said regarding waiting time reduction that "I’ve not heard a very clear description, if any, about precisely how the national government proposes that we should do that….It’s just lacking." Wells writes that "The PMO told Le Devoir that Martin’s position is clear enough, having been spelled out in the Liberal election platform." Thanks guys.
But now I sit here thinking that it is just too simple to believe that the feds are really that bad. There must be a tactical explanation to all of this - but what?
First to come into my head is the possibility that the Earnscliffes don't want any 2 to 20 year 'fix' of our health care system. A fix in September means the press will talk about other things for the next 10 months instead of health care. Talking about anything other than health care is bad for the Earnscliffes.
Same-sex marriage - the court's reply and the inevitable vote is going to come out in the fall but could more health care talks keep the headlines down a bit?
Environment - the Earnscliffe's haven't had a plan for years - why would they want to start now and give the opposition something to attack
Military, missile defence, Quebec - yeah right.
For each of those issues - should something arise - having ongoing health care talks puts pressure on the opposition to be 'constructive' and not bring down the government. What's the only issue the Earnscliffes would want to run on in an election? - the defenders of health care.
So, the "sit down for as long as it takes" might be meant to take as long as it can. It's the best way for the Earnscliffes to keep control of the PMO.
