So let's put the conclusion up front. How much confidence can you place in two MLAs who want to revivify a party that's dead and buried and more particulary, didn't exactly embody the virtues they want to highlight in their new creation, whatever it's called? Not so much.Worse, it represents the kind of principled conservatism that splits the vote and gets the NDP elected.Here's the background, courtesy of my friend and colleague David Wiechnik..UPDATED: Former Alberta UCP MLA's announce plans to revive Progressive Conservative Party.The gist, as David lays it out, is that two former United Conservative Party MLAs, Peter Guthrie and Scott Sinclair, have floated reviving the Progressive Conservative (PC) Party of Alberta..Why? .Well, Guthrie thinks the UCP under Premier Danielle is corrupt and toxic. He resigned from the UCP cabinet in February, because he felt Premier Danielle Smith was mishandling allegations, levelled by Alberta Health Services’ (AHS) former chief executive, of government interference in healthcare contracting and procurement.Sinclair also thinks it spends too much money. Speaking earlier today on Real Talk with Ryan Jespersen, Sinclair asserted the public had become frustrated with “controversial and radical” policies. He said he thinks Albertans want a government focused on practical outcomes — like access to doctors, safe roads, and affordable housing — rather than the "current divisive politics" coming from the Smith government..Smith's actions can certainly be debated, and have been. And while no official sanction has followed, Mr. Guthrie — like the rest of us — is entitled to believe what he wants to believe. (But, I will return to this.)Mr. Sinclair will also find many to echo his belief that the Government of Alberta spends too much money. Those who say so tend to forget that previous governments committed Alberta to paying more than the national average for government work — that is, health professionals and teachers. That's not on Smith. They also conveniently forget that Alberta has experienced rapid population growth in the last few years. That too is costly: long before the newcomer has contributed anything to the treasury, they are asking where is the nearest school and why they have to wait for hours in Emergency..So let's say they that subject to conformation, they may have a point.But, as Albertans voted for substantial change — an Alberta Pension Plan, an Alberta Police Force (now on the way it seems,) and serious reform to the way Alberta does health — it is a little facile to complain that such initiatives are radical. .UPDATED: NEW COPS ON THE BEAT — Alberta gets new police force; another option to RCMP.These government was elected to be radical. It was also intended to address 'practical outcomes' — such as poor police response times in rural Alberta. If they do, people will have got what the majority of them voted for.Why the grapes taste so sour to Mr. Sinclair, is for him to explain. .But here are two things that should really stagger the poor old reader. First, Messrs. Guthrie and Sinclair, having all the luxury of time for consideration that a new announcement affords, never reviewed whether the name they wanted for their new party was even available. And it isn't. When in 2019 the Progressive Conservative and Wildrose parties merged to form the United Conservative Party, "the UCP government, under Premier Jason Kenney, later passed legislation allowing the parties to merge, clearing the way for the PCs to formally dissolve on February 7, 2020."Second, if your goal is to offer Albertans a new cleaned up, slimmed down alternative to what you think is a corrupt and even toxic party, why would you pick the name of a party that wrote the book on mutual backscratching and 'fixing' things?C'mon, people..Finally, we return to the matter of people being free to believe what they want to believe. Of course they are.However, too many people are prepared to let the best be the enemy of the good. As conservatives, so many of us are so wretchedly principled (or to put it another way to so believe that we are right, that we also believe wisdom will die when we do,) that we would rather be right, than govern.And that unfortunately is the dilemma posed by people such as Guthrie and Sinclair who, with the best will in the world, risk siphoning off just enough of the UCP vote in a swing riding, to elect an equally unprincipled member of the NDP.Please, no.
So let's put the conclusion up front. How much confidence can you place in two MLAs who want to revivify a party that's dead and buried and more particulary, didn't exactly embody the virtues they want to highlight in their new creation, whatever it's called? Not so much.Worse, it represents the kind of principled conservatism that splits the vote and gets the NDP elected.Here's the background, courtesy of my friend and colleague David Wiechnik..UPDATED: Former Alberta UCP MLA's announce plans to revive Progressive Conservative Party.The gist, as David lays it out, is that two former United Conservative Party MLAs, Peter Guthrie and Scott Sinclair, have floated reviving the Progressive Conservative (PC) Party of Alberta..Why? .Well, Guthrie thinks the UCP under Premier Danielle is corrupt and toxic. He resigned from the UCP cabinet in February, because he felt Premier Danielle Smith was mishandling allegations, levelled by Alberta Health Services’ (AHS) former chief executive, of government interference in healthcare contracting and procurement.Sinclair also thinks it spends too much money. Speaking earlier today on Real Talk with Ryan Jespersen, Sinclair asserted the public had become frustrated with “controversial and radical” policies. He said he thinks Albertans want a government focused on practical outcomes — like access to doctors, safe roads, and affordable housing — rather than the "current divisive politics" coming from the Smith government..Smith's actions can certainly be debated, and have been. And while no official sanction has followed, Mr. Guthrie — like the rest of us — is entitled to believe what he wants to believe. (But, I will return to this.)Mr. Sinclair will also find many to echo his belief that the Government of Alberta spends too much money. Those who say so tend to forget that previous governments committed Alberta to paying more than the national average for government work — that is, health professionals and teachers. That's not on Smith. They also conveniently forget that Alberta has experienced rapid population growth in the last few years. That too is costly: long before the newcomer has contributed anything to the treasury, they are asking where is the nearest school and why they have to wait for hours in Emergency..So let's say they that subject to conformation, they may have a point.But, as Albertans voted for substantial change — an Alberta Pension Plan, an Alberta Police Force (now on the way it seems,) and serious reform to the way Alberta does health — it is a little facile to complain that such initiatives are radical. .UPDATED: NEW COPS ON THE BEAT — Alberta gets new police force; another option to RCMP.These government was elected to be radical. It was also intended to address 'practical outcomes' — such as poor police response times in rural Alberta. If they do, people will have got what the majority of them voted for.Why the grapes taste so sour to Mr. Sinclair, is for him to explain. .But here are two things that should really stagger the poor old reader. First, Messrs. Guthrie and Sinclair, having all the luxury of time for consideration that a new announcement affords, never reviewed whether the name they wanted for their new party was even available. And it isn't. When in 2019 the Progressive Conservative and Wildrose parties merged to form the United Conservative Party, "the UCP government, under Premier Jason Kenney, later passed legislation allowing the parties to merge, clearing the way for the PCs to formally dissolve on February 7, 2020."Second, if your goal is to offer Albertans a new cleaned up, slimmed down alternative to what you think is a corrupt and even toxic party, why would you pick the name of a party that wrote the book on mutual backscratching and 'fixing' things?C'mon, people..Finally, we return to the matter of people being free to believe what they want to believe. Of course they are.However, too many people are prepared to let the best be the enemy of the good. As conservatives, so many of us are so wretchedly principled (or to put it another way to so believe that we are right, that we also believe wisdom will die when we do,) that we would rather be right, than govern.And that unfortunately is the dilemma posed by people such as Guthrie and Sinclair who, with the best will in the world, risk siphoning off just enough of the UCP vote in a swing riding, to elect an equally unprincipled member of the NDP.Please, no.
