The Manning Centre - Conference on Alberta's Future
Saturday, February 6, 2010 at 9:50PM Today, with high hopes and 100 other "Conservatives", I attended the Manning Centre's Conference on Alberta's Future. I use quotations for a reason and will come back to that. First my thoughts on the event.
Largely, I felt frustrated and like I was being "herded" to a pre-determined set of conclusions. Unlike the Reboot Alberta conference I attended last October, which was for "Progressives" or people dissatisfied with their current choices in government, the Manning event had a much more structured agenda. I had hoped that there would be more listening going on, but largely it was a place for the Manning Centre to have pre-selected speakers on pre-determined topics, give presentations. In those presentations, the speaker would give opinionated speeches, and a "Grade" to the current Conservative government. Then our table would discuss the presentation and determine if we agreed with the grade or not.
Not surprisingly, nearly each speaker gave a low or failing grade to the goverment on the topic already chosen by the Manning Center. Here is a list of the speakers, and hopefully someone can add in the comments the grades given, as I failed to write these down.
- Fiscal Responsibility by Mike Milke, Director of Research, Frontier Centre for Public Policy
- Balanced Economic Growth by Michael Percy, Dean, U of A Business School
- Environmental Conservation, by Marlo Raynolds, Pembina Institute
- Democratic Participation by Peter McCormick, Political Science Profession, U of Lethbridge
- Health & Education by Nadeem Esmail and Peter Cowley, Fraser Institute
- Leadership on the National Stage by Monte Solberg, former MP
So, to start with my comments, I have to explain on why I felt like my participation was actually being used as a way to endorse a pre-determined agenda.
As I mentioned, unlike the Reboot Alberta event, the day started with and focused on the topics chosen by the Centre. In my opinion, the event could have easily been ran as an "unconference" and asked for the participants to suggest or make argument for certain topics to be discussed, and we could have voted on which we wanted to discuss. This is the same format used at Changecamp and Reboot, and it would have allowed for a greater sense of ownership and democratic process for the attendees. I don't doubt for a second that the topics would have been much the same as we discussed, but I also have no doubt that some new ones would have appeared.
Mine would have been, What is a Conservative? Which goes to my comment about the quotation marks. I consider myself a Conservative in many ways. I enjoyed the much conversation about fiscal policy and responsibile governance, but I have many problems with the fact that Social Conservatism and Fiscal Conservatism seem to be bundled together as a fact. This is a discussion that I think Albertans need to be having. At the very least, I expected conversation around the point. I was orginally exited to attend because I believe that Preston Manning has the stateman like qualities to have this conversation with Albertans in a respectful way.
Then, after the speeches and dicussions were over, we were given a presentation of what the organizing committee had noted from the table discussions. In a few cases, there was a fairly wide difference between what was at least discussed at my table, and what the Centre considered the concensus of the group. The problem in my mind began when we were asked to vote in support of these comments, supposedly so they could become back-up for a report the Centre would develop on the day, and report back to Albertans as concensus. Of course, even though many of us voted that there were definite differences, each of the "Grades" were passed as gospel.
The other observation that had to be made, by everyone there and has already been made by the media, was the absence of any notable Progressive Conservative MLA's and the Premier was evident. (I overheard that one backbencher was in attendance). To add to that mystery was that Danielle Smith, the leader of the Wildrose Alliance Party was there and in full blown discussion with Manning organizers, Fraser Institute speakers, and of course the media. Now, I applaud Smith for being there, but it almost felt like the day was planned for her and her party. Because if you buy the definition of what was important to "Conservatives', and of course the current government was being crriticized with a failing grade, her party would be the natural benefactor. But at least she was there to listen and participate. (As a side not, it should also be mentioned that Edwin Erickson, the leader of the Alberta Party, was also in attendance, and actually participated at a table in the excercises, unlike Smith).
Looking closer at the PC's absence, and especially the Premier's, I had to come to only three possible conclusions:
- He was not invited. (I was told he was)
- He didn't think it was worth his time
- By attending, he would be giving weight to the process and didn't want to, or he was "advised" not to be.
The problem with any of these is that it is an indicator of what we already know. Either he is not considered to be relevant, or perhaps worse, does not feel he is relevant to a discussion around what Conservatives in Alberta feel is important to discuss. No matter how you look at it, this is a very bad omen for the Premier being able to build grassroots support from this demographic.
But this brings me to my final thought. I felt like I was being patronized, because the definition of what it means to be Conservative was left for someone else to make. As I mentioned earlier, many of the discussions resonated with me. The presentations on democratic participation and healthcare were very intereesting. As a conserative, I applaud the discussion around things like balanced budgets, transparent governance and efficient program delivery. BUT, there was no discussion around dealing with other issues like poverty, social values, tolerance, listening to Albertans, and progressiveness.
A tweet I made from the event summarized it all for me. "My "feeling" so far about #projectab. It's all about money. I love money, but I don't think it's all about money". The reality is that the conservative movement in Alberta is moving even further to the right, and the concept of "Progressive Conservatism" is very much under attack. This scares me, and is the reason I am going to talk to my friends and work to organize our voices for a more moderate government.
If you want to read what was being said on Twitter today about the conference, click here to follow the discussion. Interestingly, the Twitter phrase #projectab which is the "hashtag" for the event, was at one point this afternoon the number one discussion on all of Twitter in Canada. If you're a Manning Centre Conservative, this is not necassarily a good thing as you can see in the discussion. I think that many people are like me, and worried that we are losing our way as moderate conservative, and in fact the most contentious of the "votes" at the end of the event, was the topic about how Alberta was being perceived on the National Stage. I had a very open moment at the microphone with Monte Solberg, where I questioned how things like Bill 44, and it's percieved lack of tolerance of certain segments of our society, is making Alberta seem like it is going backwards from the rest of the Country and the World.
We shall see. I could be wrong, but if I am, I am pretty sure that there will be thousands of Albertans who agree with me.
Perhaps ironically, the Edmonton Journal captured an image at the exact time I was voting AGAINST what the committee had presented back to the group on Alberta on the National Stage. As I mentioned, it was in this particlaur dicussion, the slides and points the Manning Centre collected on the topic were completely different than the actual discussion itself. Sadly, that will NOT be what shows up in their report.
View Printer Friendly Version
Email Article to Friend
Reader Comments (15)
I agree with your observation re: the general failure to distinguish fiscal conservatism from social conservatism! I am always confused by the marriage of less state intervention re: economics and all sorts of state intervention re: social values!
Thanks for the interesting account.
I'm thinking that us Changecamp Rebooters have been spoiled having been exposed to that format. I found the conference interesting. I was kind of surprised with the campaigning in the "discussion" between Danielle Smith and Kyle Fawcett. Aside from Ms. Smith's adeptness at speaking and handling the media there is no substantive policy difference between WAP and the PCs at this time. I was curious that she said WAP had a robust fiscal policy when in fact they haven't had their policy convention yet. I was also confused with the switching between supporting the environment and the tailings ponds can be a good thing. We don't need another #makeitupasyougoalong politician. I too got the feeling that the agenda was set and there really wasn't a desire to get really new ideas, which was unfortunate because there were a lot of smart people in the room.
Mike Percy was the only speaker that mentioned the importance of social capital, so I will forgive him using the phrases "trickle down" and "jobless recovery". I would love to have seen what topics would have been chosen and where the discussions would have gone if the Changecamp/Reboot model had been used. I wonder what the wordle would have looked like from the conference. Good on you for bring up Bill 44.
Thanks for the quick update. It doesn't surprise that the agenda was set and no deviation from the expected outcomes will be recorded. Lately, I get the feeling that 'C'onservative means, "the thinking will be done for you by others and you will agree with what those at the top have mapped out.
The 'P' in progressive has all but been dropped from the PC. That it might reappear as a counter to the newer version (WAP) was a hope I had, but it looks as if I might be disappointed. In order to compete with the 'farther' right the PCs look a bit frozen.
One thing was apparent to me since the Throne Speech. Danielle Smith has turned out to be little more than a campaigner (and not that shrewd a one at that)... complaining about the speech itself and how it was full of good ideas but that the PCs were too tired to make good on their vision... and then coming out and saying the PCs are "spying" on her. Danielle, of course their watching you and noting who you talk with; you're the leader of a party that is threatening you strip their power. Get used to it.
Good for you for going and reporting from the floor.
Karren, I'm not sure why you'd say that the Wildrose hasn't had a policy convention yet. They voted on and adopted a full set of policies at their last AGM in June, and the result is available on their website.
Thanks Invisible Hand, I stand corrected.
Thanks for your post, and your engagement. In some ways I feel like I am living and learning vicariously through your experience and others in the social media world.
What is a conservative? Not Chris Labossiere. Rob Anderson is a much better example of a true conservative, not a phony one like the owner of this blog.
I posted this comment using the twitter name, although the thoughts that follow come from my own personal side, if you will. This event was one that I would have liked to attend, just as there have been many events (including the up coming Reboot Alberta) that are extremely worthy of my time. Finances to attend, are of course another issue.
I get the feeling that I am not alone, when I try to determine who I am "brand wise". I tend to find most labels offensive, because of the political parties that use them have made the generic names sound dirty. I am not liberal, I am not conservative, I am not a democrate, I am just me. I believe that the little people have been forgotten and the big corporations have literally gotten away with "murder". I believe that most government departments are too weighed down with red tape and rules that, combined with making no sense, do nothing but tie peoples hands and are one of the biggest causes of wasted taxpayers money.
I also believe that when you get into a situation that seems to drive towards a conclusion(s) based on what the "hosts" want as an outcome, people lose, and they lose big time. I like to use the scenerio of being in a trial, and having the prosecution asking the question "Did you use the hammer or the blunt end of the axe to kill him", when in fact I used neither, because I wasn't the one who did it.
I am just me, someone that cares to see things done, done right, and done the best way possible with the least bad effect(s) possible.
I agree with Shayne above. I talked to Rob Anderson at the Matrix on Friday and he has a very strong sense of what a conservative is. This is a free society and there's nothing wrong with religion in politics or anywhere else. Why Chris doesn't get this is beyond me and downright discriminatory.
Joe Albertan, I believe they do this already in the middle east. So when can we expect Sharia law?
Chris I have absolutely no doubt that they had predetermined Conclusions already decided. This seems to be an accepted practice today. The Royalty Review was another example of predetermined conclusions regardless of the opinions and data collected. The PC party had poor representation at the meeting because they do not feel they answer to us and Ed Stelmach is no different. The arrogance and plain old lack of respect they have for the Alberta people is appauling.
Karren you are so right about how things are done in the middle east and how dangerous that type of thing can be. Seperation of religion and state is the basis for any democracy. Without seperation it allows for discrimantion sanctioned by government.
The earlier post was not by myself. If you would like to read what I'm all about rather than the ranting of an idiot that likes to pretend he's is posting on my behalf and then saying stupid things go to www.joealbertan.blogspot.com
Oncer again someone has been impersonating me. I'm the real Joe Albertan, proud Wildrose Alliance supporter. Please disregard the impostor who made the last post.
And this is why I read www.chrislabossiere.com. Shocking post.
And this is why I read www.chrislabossiere.com. Awesome posts.
http://fuskhumanised.blogspot.com/2010/03/free-sinus-emulate-fusk-video-weighed.html
- FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE -
Tuesday, March 9, 2010
Manning Centre Builds Dictator Democracy
Christians Expelled from Manning Convention Due to Religious Beliefs
Street Church Ministries is deeply concerned about the roll Christians will play in Canada's democracy, in the future, if the Manning Centre has its way. The ministry was recently expelled from being an exhibitor at the Centre's 2010 convention on the basis of their religious beliefs. Artur Pawlowski, the lead pastor of Street Church Ministries stated that he was appalled and shocked at the boldfaced arrogance and prejudice that the Manning Centre for Building Democracy showed by telling him that a political convention was no place for a church.
“What kind of a democracy is the Manning Centre building if they are telling churches, and their leaders, that they are not allowed to have a table at their convention, to address moral and social issues that our Country is facing today, since political events are 'not the proper forum for a church'? Is not democracy allowing people to share their divergent viewpoints on matters of policy making, that will ultimately effect the future of Canada, no matter what background you are from? I understood that in our country our Charter of Rights grants all people equality and that we are even guaranteed freedom of religion and expression. Surely an organization as influential as the Manning Centre with its stated goal of shaping the future of democracy in Canada, should adhere to the spirit of our nation's Charter.” charged Pawlowski.
In the spring of last year, Street Church Ministries was an exhibitor at the Manning Convention in Ottawa. This year Street Church received invitations to both attend the event and to once again be an exhibitor at the 2010 convention. On November 11th, 2009, Mr. Pawlowski pre-paid his exhibitor package using the sign-up form on the Manning Centre website, looking forward to a second year at the event. On November 20th, 2009 his purchase was refunded without explanation. After phone calls with the Manning Centre it was revealed that the Manning Centre, now, does not feel that a “political event is the proper forum for a church”. Pawlowski proceeded to call different contacts at the Manning Centre only to be ultimately told by Nicholas Gafuik the Managing Director of the Centre that it was none of his business why he was refused a table and that the matter was considered closed.
The issue was further complicated by the fact that Concerned Christians Canada, a Christian political lobby group, was also refused exhibitor status when it applied for a table shortly after hearing from Street Church that they were expelled, based on their religious beliefs.
“When I heard that a church was rejected as an exhibitor after being allowed the previous year to run a table at the event, due to their religious beliefs, I wanted to see if they would reject CCC since we are also a Christian organization, or if their issue was just against Street Church. I was actually shocked that when I applied to have a table, that my payment was refunded shortly thereafter and that our exhibitor status was also rejected. When I called to find out the reason why, they refused to give me a valid answer but merely told me that 'my friend had already applied and that he was already told no and that the matter was closed'. I find this response bizarre since I filled in the form for CCC not for Street Church. What an absurd way to deal with things. Christians should, like every other citizen, have the right to speak on issues facing the future of their nation and they most certainly should not be denied a table on the basis of their religious beliefs. It is a violation of our Charter protected freedoms and an insult to Christians across our nation,” stated Jim Blake National Chairman of Concerned Christians Canada.
Concerned Christians Canada and Street Church have spoken with the chairman of the board of directors of the Centre and have made several attempts to contact Preston Manning himself by phone, e-mail and registered letter to try to clear this matter up privately.
“I tried to deal with this behind closed doors, using all measures possible, but they wouldn't have it. They have have forced me to expose the hypocrisy of an organization that states that it is building a democracy for all when in fact they are dictating who is in and who is out. I have a personal question to Mr. Manning, 'What kind of democracy are you building? Obviously, not the kind that I would want my children to grow up under, and I pray to God that you would not have your way.'”
Street Church has made their letter to Manning public, now that the Manning Centre has refused to change their stance. It can be read on their website at http://www.streetchurch.ca/manning-letter. For more information contact Artur Pawlowski of Street Church Ministries.
- 30 -