News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 9.6K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 41K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.4K     0 

kim campbell was quoted as having said “an election is no time to discuss serious issues” although she asserts she was misquoted by the reporter and meant that 47 days were not enough tackle such serious issues.

whether the quote is accurate or not, i believe it remains a truism.

serious issues need to be discussed all of the time if there is going to be any accountability. by the time an election is actually being held, it should be less about the promises of future action and accountability and more about accountability for decisions and actions taken since the last election (and to a degree that's as true for opposition parties as it is for governing parties).
It's interesting that you bring up this quote. Campbell was pilloried during the 1993 campaign for saying it (even if she was misquoted) because voters interpreted it as her being unwilling to spell out beforehand what she planned to do on certain files if re-elected. Campbell subsequently contended, and I believe her, that she was pointing out that election time (with its brief sound bites and elevated temperatures) does not allow for proper discussion and scrutiny of options in major areas of policy. She was absolutely correct, though to be fair she also had a track record of setting off verbal land mines which led people to choose the worst possible interpretation of anything she said.

As to your second point, very few elections seem to be about accountability. This year we've already seen the re-election of the absolutely disastrous President Erdogan in Turkiye. His crackpot economic policies have caused widespread harm to the economy and financial stability of the country, the resulting devaluation of the lira has impoverished millions of Turks, yet he was re-elected over an experienced opponent who was offering a competent alternative. Or look at Finland, where a solid prime minister Sanna Marin was defeated by the voters and replaced with an unwieldy coalition government which includes the far-right. Voters seem more concerned about what parties are promising in the near future, and how a party and its leader makes them feel at the time of a campaign, rather than holding them accountable for anything the party has or hasn't done in the past four years.
 
Well the last thing most governments want to be is accountable for mistakes or problems. Likewise opposition leaders usually have no record and so would rather just criticize the government and be as vague as possible about what they would do.

In the end its up to voters to hold both parties feet to the fire and make them more accountable and not be distracted by the things politicians want to focus on to distract us.
 
sooo...

in announcing the province's acquisition of dynalife, the minister said that "saiting weeks in some communities to book an appointment, or to get test results back, is just not right, and it's not acceptable."

maybe we should de-privatize our hospitals for the same reason? oh wait, we did that a long time ago.

maybe it's not the ownership that's really the issue?

 
Bet they're starting to regret cancelling that superlab...
bwaaahaahaa…
If they don’t regret being responsible for this:
IMG_7948.jpeg
they’re not likely to regret the superlab. :(

come to think of it, is there anything they do admit to regretting?
 
sooo...

in announcing the province's acquisition of dynalife, the minister said that "saiting weeks in some communities to book an appointment, or to get test results back, is just not right, and it's not acceptable."

maybe we should de-privatize our hospitals for the same reason? oh wait, we did that a long time ago.

maybe it's not the ownership that's really the issue?

De-privatize. Cannot bring themselves to say nationalize.
 
^

it also needs to be remembered that this was not a new or recent private sector venture into health care:

“DynaLife is a Canadian private healthcare organization, headquartered in Edmonton, where it started as Dynacare Kasper Medical Laboratories (DKML) in the 1980s. It is partly owned by its American-based Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp), who acquired Dynacare in 2002.”

they have had a long and successful history of provided lab services for northern alberta and the territories. the labs in the south half of the province that have experienced schedule delays and other issues were only just acquired between december ‘22 and february ‘23 and were previously public sector. why what worked well for four decades in half the province was unsuccessful in the other half to the degree it warranted a full capitulation in less than half a year i will leave for others to speculate on.
 
One of the obvious problems of having a separate private firm run things like labs and testing is less integration with the health care system.

DynaLife's priorities may not always be the same as AHS's. Having a separate organization just makes doing things more complicated and time consuming.
 

Back
Top