It can be politically advantageous to have scoundrels in your midst. When scandals hit and the public grows weary of your political party, you can toss out the malefactors, bring in an untainted new leader, make a few cosmetic changes and declare the problem solved. Your real policies even might escape scrutiny.

This is a conjuring trick performed by Alberta’s Progressive Conservatives (PCs). Its effectiveness was confirmed when the party’s new leader, Jim Prentice, and three other PC members of the legislative assembly (MLAs) won byelections in late October. The news is grim for Alberta’s official Opposition, the more conservative Wildrose Alliance Party of Alberta, which lost all four contests, and for those who still quaintly envision government living within its means.

For the past 18 months, Wildrose, which took 34% of the vote in the 2012 provincial election but has only 17 of Alberta’s 87 MLAs, has been riding a wave of popularity generated by its relentless pursuit of government scandals. These ranged from the misuse of government-owned planes by previous premier Alison Redford and senior ministers to Redford’s bizarre scheme for a multimillion-dollar luxury residential suite and offices dubbed the “Sky Palace.”

Wildrose’s continuous lashing of the PCs makes for great political sport, but Wildrose’s leadership deceived itself into thinking this is all it would take to replace the PCs. Wildrose abandoned – or buried – policies aimed at reining in Alberta’s out-of-control spending. The PCs’ profligacy includes six consecutive operating deficits, squandering Alberta’s previous debt-free position; even this year, while claiming a surplus, the PCs borrowed another $5 billion. Wildrose used to have serious and sober – if controversial – ideas for major spending cuts. Recently, all that party talked about was trimming a few hundred thousand dollars here and a few million dollars there.

There are two problems with that approach. First, regaining control over public finances means tackling the big spending portfolios: health care, education and social services. Wildrose had dumped all of that because the 2012 election results convinced the party leadership they were “too right wing.” But Wildrose’s balanced-budget claims are no longer credible.

The second problem is that moving toward the political centre is a death trap for any party of principle. Redford seemed like the political gift that would keep on giving; but, over time, the implicit message became that if the PCs were to eliminate these public pain points, the repairs would be complete. If so, then why should voters switch political allegiance?

The PCs first dumped Redford and her key allies. Prentice followed up by adopting some Wildrose ideas. Once that was done, there is little left to distinguish Wildrose from the PCs. Moving to the centre and focusing on minutiae has been profoundly damaging to Wildrose, which needs to return to its roots of presenting a substantive alternative to the PCs.

More of Koch’s articles can be read at www.drjandmrk.com.

© 2014 Investment Executive. All rights reserved.