The Fiscal Four Fraud
Wednesday, November 11, 2009 at 8:27PM I have met three of the four alleged "Fiscal Four" and I can't help but feel that they are being a bit opportunistic and disingenuous. First, I must profess that I only had a chance to really talk with 2 of them. MLA Jonothan Denis and MLA Doug Griffiths. Permission to speak frankly:
Jonothan Denis, in my personal opinion, has a personality that can only be described as used car salesman meets smarmy entitled lawyer. My discussion with him is best described as socially awkward, and I doubt that he is anything more than a political opportunist who is riding a wave of luck, enabled ironically by the demise of radical Social Conservative Craig Chandler. (a properly chosen WAP candidate in 2012 will easily beat him)
For those of you who don't recall, Jonothan Dennis was the second choice of Calgary Egmont PC Association constituents in the 2008 nomination. After Premier Stelmach showed good leadership to reject Chandler's Nutbar Social Conservative agenda. In my opinion, Dennis was a benefactor of a solid Stelmach showing in 2008, and is probably no more suited for governance than Micheal Jackson was for babysitting.
Doug Grffiths however struck me as the opposite. He seems a pragmatic fiscal Conservative, stuck in a largely rural riding, but who seems to get that strong partisanship as it relates to Social Conservatism is a death-knell for the greater population. I could be wrong on Griffiths, but his progressive activity in Social Media communities, plus his ability to be at ease among differing opinions, tells me that he could be a great politician.
So, my only hypothesis, is that these four young PC MLA's are hedging their bets and trying to make a name for themselves as fiscal conservatives (which is about as good a label as one can have these days), leaving their options open with the PC Party, and yet extending a foot to the life raft named Wildrose Alliance Party.
We don't need anymore political opportunists, we need leadership. Staking your claim as a fiscal conservative aligns easily with a majority of Albertans. Risking your reputation as a pragmatic and balanced public representative however is a risky maneuver. This is where I really hope that Doug Griffiths considers his options wisely.
Now, I am not suggesting that they are wrong to question their party, as you know I have posted before that I think the party needs a serious introspective enema. But, if I was trying to show leadership, I would consider seriously who I aligned myself with. Jonothan Denis is no Doug Griffiths.
And, before I mounted the life raft, I would do a serious review of the people on that boat. Let's revisit Craig Chandler for a second. Chandler was the campaign manager for Mark Dryholm, of the Wildrose Alliance Party. Frankly Chanlder is a religious fanatic, and that interferes with his ability to manouver in a "Big Tent" party. Interestingly, he is firmly behind Danielle Smith as you can read in this blog post.
Ironically, I also don't get the impression that Danielle Smith is a true Social Conservative, so she may try to convince Alberta that she can bring the conservative movement under her version of the "Big Tent", but to get my vote, she would need to bring an agenda that is inclusive of moderates and distance herself from the religious right. Being a self-described Libertarian is not enough, and frankly hard to believe as long as she continues to be a benefactor of the likes of Chandler. Oh, and that agenda HAS to include a repeal of Bill 44, and so therein lies the rub.
Say what you want about Ed Stelmach, but he is no extremist. My thoughts from the middle.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (17)
I think I choked on my scotch when I read the Michael Jackson analogy.
Otherwise, an excellent article.
Chris,
I agree with your assertion that the "Fiscal Four" branding is opportunistic, but I would argue it founded in a truthful desire to show some leadership in a province with a spending problem. Opportunism is not necessarily a bad thing in this situation. In fact, it's just plain good policy and great politics.
Also, I've never met Doug Griffiths, but I've had a number of encounters with Jonathan Denis. He has always struck me as a tireless worker, deeply committed to the Government, and well-deserving of his recent appointment as a P.A. Jonathan is also one of the biggest proponents of social media on the Government benches as far as I can tell.
You last point is perhaps the most intriguing and worthy of future debate, whether the WAP can shake off the grasps of certain divisive personalities and become a "Big Tent" party that can be a comfortable home to the types of Albertans who proudly define themselves as progressive conservatives.
SD
Um, it's "Denis". One n.
SD:
Ok, I'll give you that. Political opportunism is part of politics. But as an enlightened voter, I have to consider what they are using the opportunity for. That is the crux of my argument. I hope to see leadership that tackles the issue, without simply looking for a chance to maintain a spot on the boat, and still hold a spot on the life raft for themselves.
John:
Perhaps my impressions of Denis were unfair, we shall see. But his dismissive and entitled attitude in my meeting him, was confirmed by others as well. I may be wrong, but my debates with him during the third reading of the Bill 44 legislation sure points to a guy who is only looking out for himself. Then again, he was acclaimed the constituency nomination after a religious fanatic had already won it. Maybe he had to support Bill 44. But, does that make him suited for governance in a self-described "Big-Tent" party?
DiscussionDiva:
Corrected, and thank you.
C
The real question for these alleged "Fiscal Four" is this: "name the specific areas of the budget you would cut (with the exact numbers, including layoffs) to balance the budget and why?"
Fiscal conservatism is a great claim to make. But judging by recent actions, I'm not certain these four - or much of the rest of the government - are prepared to answer this question.
Where is the honest conversation with Albertans about our provincial finances and where our true priorities lie? If anything, I hope the Fiscal Four's political opportunism inadvertently leads us to having this conversation.
But before we get that far, let's first not forget that Alberta's finances are in better shape than most other jurisdictions in the world. We have no debt and billions in the bank, but we also have a projected $7 Billion deficit this year because of short-term thinking.
It's clear we need to make some changes, but it's also clear that we have much more leeway than just about everywhere else in the world to address this bugetary problem with a long-term sustainable solution.
Here's the rub: I don't think regular Albertans are going to stand for big cuts to health care, education or any of the other big ticket portfolios. And given Ed's recent promises about taxes, this leaves our government in an impossible place: stuck between those demanding no tax increase and massive cuts and the awakening public, who doesn't think highly of our government and politicians in general, and who will not tolerate cuts resulting in poor quality health care services or a in a sub-par education for their children.
I hope we see some real leadership on these important issue soon. Frankly, I'm surprised more politicians don't see the real opportunity in this situation.
-@andrewmcintyre
Regarding the Wildrose Alliance, Craig Chandler, Danielle Smith, et al: The team around Danielle is strong and focused. Whether or not you agree with Chandler's beliefs or politics, he is but one member in a party whose numbers are swelling. I suggest you take some time and familiarize yourself with the WAP policies (both those now set and those being formed) and judge the party and the leader on those merits.
No one went head to head with Chandler during the leadership race more than I. However, he does possess many key attibutes that will benefit the party. And remember, as with all other party members, he has but one vote.
Andrew:
Excellent points!
Leigh Patrick:
Are those the official thoughts from "The Moderate Seperatist"? I have read your blog, and I really doubt that what you think the average Alberta is, versus what I think it is, are going to be the same. Perspective and context is everything, and I think you are seeing things from somewhere right of where I see things.
Completely agree with your impressions of both. Denis needs to work on his image if he's not actually like you describe. Another great question for the fiscal four: where were you when times were good and we actually had money to save?
How ironic - most of my fellow conservatives consider me 'too left' because of my socially moderate views. I've found most Albertans share similar views, added to a belief in fiscal conservatism. Therefore, I will assume it is the 'separatist' aspect that you don't agree with?
Perhaps another read of my blog will afford you a better understanding of my political beliefs so that a more accurate opinion can be formed.
(Calling Smith a 'benefactor' of Chandler is quite inaccurate)
Good post and good comments from Andrew. I agree with Andrew that there has to be an honest discussion with Albertans about the province's finances and what our priorities are as Albertans. I would also add that the other part of the discussion has to be how are we going to pay for the priorities and maybe the dreaded T (taxes) word or the even more dreaded ST (sales tax) words have to be raised.
Could there be a moratorium on the use of the phrase "fiscal conservative", it has come to be meaningless much like the term "neo-con". Myself, I see the actions of many alleged fiscal conservatives being more like corporate socialists and allowing select private businesses to use taxpayer dollars as their personal piggy bank. I suggest that "fiscally responsible" is a much better term to use. It implies accountability, transparency, wise managment of money and resources, and being open to new initiatives. "Fiscal conservative" just seems so shut down, inward looking, exclusive, and fearful. However, that is just my interpretation.
Acutally Denis wasn't acclaimed in a second nomination. He won it 390 votes to 89 for the Chandler put up job.
True, this is opportunism but it's of another kind. Their actions are politically sanctioned at the highest level of the PC party. They are social media users, 1 is a member of the treasury board - they are useful to changing the perception of the PC as a centrist party. They are trying to win back ground from the WAP and so they're making a shift look grassroots. I can assure you with confidence that it is not.
I've personally met Denis and Anderson before and they both seem to be very upstanding and hardworking young MLAs who have solid fiscal conservative credentials. For example, Airdrie-Chestermere's policy resolution deals with government fiscal responsibility. Denis strikes me as a fiscal conservative stuck in an urban riding. He should be commended for returning the surplus office budget to the province. It's a nice symbolic gesture - every little bit in every department counts.
Bill 44 should never be repealed. Rob Anderson should be commended for pushing for this piece of progressive legislation. Any party wanting to repeal it will never get my vote. Period.
I'm just going through some old blog posts. There was the first nomination where Denis placed second of three, then Chandler got the boot. Then the second nomination which he won. Then the general election where Chandler ran as an independent and Denis smoked him by over 2,200 votes, even with the vote split. I live in the area and he's been very active in the community since, probably one of few that doesn't take being elected as an "entitlement". I highly doubt he's beatable if he keeps this up.
How do you think a WAP candidate will beat Denis when he soundly took the riding last time? WAP had about 5% to his 44%.