Back from the dead? Former United Conservative Party (UCP) MLAs Peter Guthrie and Scott Sinclair say they are going to make the old Progressive Conservative Party great again.But this is going to be a tall order, even if they can run under the grand old party's name.They say they have the green light from Elections Alberta to register as the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta, which was the former party's legal name in its day.But that's not a given. I had a front row seat to the Wildrose-PC merger negotiations that created the UCP in 2017, and preventing exactly this scenario was a major part of it..The non-profit corporation that was created for the UCP also "owned" the Wildrose and PC entities as subsidiaries. After the UCP won in 2019, they amended the laws to allow them to formally merge and do away with the two zombie parties. Beyond election law however, the UCP owns the trademarks for the former Wildrose and PC parties. This means that they have a legal claim against anyone else trying to use those brands.But there are ways around this. Since the UCP was created in 2017, three parties have run candidates with similar—but not identical — party names. The Freedom Conservative Party was started by yours truly in 2018. The FCP merged with Wexit in 2020 to create the Wildrose Independence Party. And a breakaway group from the WIP formed the Wildrose Loyalty Coalition, which sounds more like a gas station rewards program than a political party.All of these parties were allowed by Elections Alberta to use "Conservative" or "Wildrose" in their names, but not to pass themselves off as the original Wildrose or Progressive Conservative parties. I suspect that the aspiring "Progressive Conservatives" will have to make a similar accommodation.Beyond the name challenges, new (or revived) parties almost never succeed. The "PCs" will face some other major challenges..Vote Splitting PTSDAs with the upstart Republicans in the Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills by-election, Alberta conservatives have a (sometimes) irrational fear of "vote-splitting" after the experience of 2015, which saw the NDP win. In more urban constituencies with close UCP-NDP races, this fear is well grounded. However, in more rural constituencies where the UCP run up the score into wild supermajorities, multiple conservative candidates on the ballot pose no real risk of electing the NDP. Still, conservative voters there are terrified that "splitting the vote" will see the left win.The PCs would likely be more urban/suburban-focused than the Republicans, and would very much be running in constituencies where a vote split runs the very real risk of electing the NDP.Switzerland at WarSince the UCP's first election in 2019, Alberta has become a strict two-party system. The Liberals and the Alberta Party — both of which tried to position themselves in the middle — were wiped out. That duopoly was further strengthened in 2023 when the two "centrist" parties received a combined 1.1% of the vote.Self-proclaimed "centrist" parties have successfully won and held power in Canada and Alberta before, but almost always when they are a well-established force. They very rarely ever manage to successfully push their way into the electoral math when there are already two distinctive and potent alternatives in place..Advisor to the early Reform and Wildrose parties, Tom Flanagan, wrote about the challenges facing new parties in his 2014 book, Winning Power. He made the case that new parties must "invade from the margins". That is, they need to offer voters something clearly distinguishable from what the established mainstream parties have on the menu. In Alberta, both the Reform and Wildrose parties fit that bill when the federal PCs under Brian Mulroney were seen as too Eastern and focused on Quebec, and the provincial PCs as too left-leaning. In BC, the Greens have had limited success in exploiting the tensions between labour and environmentalism in the NDP. In Quebec, the PQ and BQ successfully infiltrated the electoral system by appealing to nationalism in place of the traditional left-right alignment. And of course, the federal NDP itself (until recently) was successful in pushing from the left where the Liberals were seen to serve the interests of big business. Readers can correct me if I'm wrong, but no significant example comes to mind where a new "centrist" party has successfully established itself in the middle. The "middle" is already the most fought-over political turf. In Alberta, the UCP and NDP throw the bulk of their time and resources at a handful of swing voters located in suburban Calgary and Edmonton. Voters in those constituencies are like the no-man's land on the Western Front in 1916. The PC's dilemma is that they are akin to Switzerland joining the war against both France and Germany at the same time, trying to fight their way up to Luxembourg. Successful political entries tend to fight for political ground on the flanks that are poorly defended..Something Old. Something BlueSinclair and Guthrie are well within their rights to form a new party that better reflects their position, but their stated reasons for running under the old PC banner are curious. Both have criticized the fiscal profligacy of UCP under Premier Danielle Smith. And on this, I think they've got a point. But the PC brand was hardly known for its fiscal probity during its last two decades in power. After major fiscal restraint and paying off the debt during Klein's first two terms in office, spending quickly began to run out of control, until it went completely off the rails under Alison Redford and Jim Prentice. Few Albertans with any understanding of budgets during that period would hold the late-stage PCs up as a symbol of fiscal conservatism to be emulated. Their other major thrust of criticism is at "corruption" in the UCP around alleged misdeeds in healthcare contracts. These allegations may yet turn out to be fire where there's smoke, but as yet, there's nothing solid. Maybe there is widespread corruption in the UCP. Maybe. But do we know where there was widespread corruption, most definitely? I don't even need to say it. Now, neither Guthrie nor Sinclair was a part of the PC governments of old and so wear none of that stain. But they are opting to adopt as their political brand a political party that was primarily known for two things by the end of its long reign: corruption and fiscal irresponsibility. .I tend to think choice is a good thing, including in politics. Mono-parties, where every member and elected representative is expected to think and act alike, are a plague upon our politics. So, the more the merrier. But this enterprise is going to be a lot more difficult than registering an old party name and slapping it on a sign.
Back from the dead? Former United Conservative Party (UCP) MLAs Peter Guthrie and Scott Sinclair say they are going to make the old Progressive Conservative Party great again.But this is going to be a tall order, even if they can run under the grand old party's name.They say they have the green light from Elections Alberta to register as the Progressive Conservative Association of Alberta, which was the former party's legal name in its day.But that's not a given. I had a front row seat to the Wildrose-PC merger negotiations that created the UCP in 2017, and preventing exactly this scenario was a major part of it..The non-profit corporation that was created for the UCP also "owned" the Wildrose and PC entities as subsidiaries. After the UCP won in 2019, they amended the laws to allow them to formally merge and do away with the two zombie parties. Beyond election law however, the UCP owns the trademarks for the former Wildrose and PC parties. This means that they have a legal claim against anyone else trying to use those brands.But there are ways around this. Since the UCP was created in 2017, three parties have run candidates with similar—but not identical — party names. The Freedom Conservative Party was started by yours truly in 2018. The FCP merged with Wexit in 2020 to create the Wildrose Independence Party. And a breakaway group from the WIP formed the Wildrose Loyalty Coalition, which sounds more like a gas station rewards program than a political party.All of these parties were allowed by Elections Alberta to use "Conservative" or "Wildrose" in their names, but not to pass themselves off as the original Wildrose or Progressive Conservative parties. I suspect that the aspiring "Progressive Conservatives" will have to make a similar accommodation.Beyond the name challenges, new (or revived) parties almost never succeed. The "PCs" will face some other major challenges..Vote Splitting PTSDAs with the upstart Republicans in the Olds-Didsbury-Three Hills by-election, Alberta conservatives have a (sometimes) irrational fear of "vote-splitting" after the experience of 2015, which saw the NDP win. In more urban constituencies with close UCP-NDP races, this fear is well grounded. However, in more rural constituencies where the UCP run up the score into wild supermajorities, multiple conservative candidates on the ballot pose no real risk of electing the NDP. Still, conservative voters there are terrified that "splitting the vote" will see the left win.The PCs would likely be more urban/suburban-focused than the Republicans, and would very much be running in constituencies where a vote split runs the very real risk of electing the NDP.Switzerland at WarSince the UCP's first election in 2019, Alberta has become a strict two-party system. The Liberals and the Alberta Party — both of which tried to position themselves in the middle — were wiped out. That duopoly was further strengthened in 2023 when the two "centrist" parties received a combined 1.1% of the vote.Self-proclaimed "centrist" parties have successfully won and held power in Canada and Alberta before, but almost always when they are a well-established force. They very rarely ever manage to successfully push their way into the electoral math when there are already two distinctive and potent alternatives in place..Advisor to the early Reform and Wildrose parties, Tom Flanagan, wrote about the challenges facing new parties in his 2014 book, Winning Power. He made the case that new parties must "invade from the margins". That is, they need to offer voters something clearly distinguishable from what the established mainstream parties have on the menu. In Alberta, both the Reform and Wildrose parties fit that bill when the federal PCs under Brian Mulroney were seen as too Eastern and focused on Quebec, and the provincial PCs as too left-leaning. In BC, the Greens have had limited success in exploiting the tensions between labour and environmentalism in the NDP. In Quebec, the PQ and BQ successfully infiltrated the electoral system by appealing to nationalism in place of the traditional left-right alignment. And of course, the federal NDP itself (until recently) was successful in pushing from the left where the Liberals were seen to serve the interests of big business. Readers can correct me if I'm wrong, but no significant example comes to mind where a new "centrist" party has successfully established itself in the middle. The "middle" is already the most fought-over political turf. In Alberta, the UCP and NDP throw the bulk of their time and resources at a handful of swing voters located in suburban Calgary and Edmonton. Voters in those constituencies are like the no-man's land on the Western Front in 1916. The PC's dilemma is that they are akin to Switzerland joining the war against both France and Germany at the same time, trying to fight their way up to Luxembourg. Successful political entries tend to fight for political ground on the flanks that are poorly defended..Something Old. Something BlueSinclair and Guthrie are well within their rights to form a new party that better reflects their position, but their stated reasons for running under the old PC banner are curious. Both have criticized the fiscal profligacy of UCP under Premier Danielle Smith. And on this, I think they've got a point. But the PC brand was hardly known for its fiscal probity during its last two decades in power. After major fiscal restraint and paying off the debt during Klein's first two terms in office, spending quickly began to run out of control, until it went completely off the rails under Alison Redford and Jim Prentice. Few Albertans with any understanding of budgets during that period would hold the late-stage PCs up as a symbol of fiscal conservatism to be emulated. Their other major thrust of criticism is at "corruption" in the UCP around alleged misdeeds in healthcare contracts. These allegations may yet turn out to be fire where there's smoke, but as yet, there's nothing solid. Maybe there is widespread corruption in the UCP. Maybe. But do we know where there was widespread corruption, most definitely? I don't even need to say it. Now, neither Guthrie nor Sinclair was a part of the PC governments of old and so wear none of that stain. But they are opting to adopt as their political brand a political party that was primarily known for two things by the end of its long reign: corruption and fiscal irresponsibility. .I tend to think choice is a good thing, including in politics. Mono-parties, where every member and elected representative is expected to think and act alike, are a plague upon our politics. So, the more the merrier. But this enterprise is going to be a lot more difficult than registering an old party name and slapping it on a sign.
