www.ChrisLaBossiere.com

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.

1. Fiscal Responsibility by Mike Milke, Director of Research, Frontier Centre for Public Policy
2. Balanced Economic Growth by Michael Percy, Dean, U of A Business School
3. Environmental Conservation, by Marlo Raynolds, Pembina Institute
4. Democratic Participation by Peter McCormick, Political Science Profession, U of Lethbridge
5. Health & Education by Nadeem Esmail and Peter Cowley, Fraser Institute
6. 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:

1. He was not invited. (I was told he was)
2. He didn't think it was worth his time
3. 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.

Tonight may well have been a watershed moment for the Alberta PC Party. One of their strongest constituencies, and without a doubt one of their strongest MLA's, came under attack. Dave Hancock had the guts to stand in front of hundreds of unhappy constituents on the topic of healthcare.

This was not his event, and nor is healthcare his portfolio, but they are his constituents. Like he always has, he chose to take his lumps and be there to answer to many of those who voted for him. Something tells me that he does so out of obligation to the constituency and not necasarily out of obligation to his party. As you can tell, I have a lot of respect for Dave Hancock, but in politics that may not matter.

But, from what I can see, the people of Edmonton Whitemud are probably not looking even further right for the answers. Edmonton Whitemud has always been about as close to the political center as you can envision. So then what's next for Edmonton Whitemud, and Alberta for that matter?

This is where I think the answer is not yet in front of us. There are two very interesting things happening in Alberta that are non-partisan in nature. They deserve our attention. Both of them are very telling of the dissatisfaction many Albertans have with existing parties.

1. Reboot Alberta, a Progressive think-tank that has inspired many moderate Albertans, is gathering much momentum and hosting their second event in Kananaskis. This non-partisan community has quickly come together online and offline. The first Reboot had four groups within it, and one of them were many who think we could use a new moderate party. All of Alberta, urban, rural, young and old, the business person and the everyman, were in attendance at the first Reboot. 
2. Also of interest, and a first for the acclaimed Manning Center for Democracy, is a weekend long conference on Alberta's Future. The Manning Center has not yet been involved in Provincial politics, and something tells me that its namesake, a trusted conservative statesman, is unhappy with where things are heading in Alberta as well. Manning as of late has shifted his position to a "Green Conservatism".

I continue to feel that we need something NEW. Someone said this to me last weekend, about the existing party choices, and I tend to agree:

The Wildrose Alliance are unhappy with government and seem to want to go back to the days of the parochial Social Credit Party of the 50's.

The Liberal Party has been unable to inspire Alberta on a platform with solutions. they have not been able to get past the distrust of the NEP, and seem to have responded with only criticisms, and are light on solutions. Even more light on leadership.

Sadly, and I say sadly because they own the political spectrum that most of us resonate with, the PC Party has stopped innovating democracy, and seem only interested in holding onto power

So, and again this is my opinion, it just FEELS like the solution for the next government of this Province is not yet in front of us. I am ok with that, and I am starting to see the value in the discussion that is happening amongst us.

I plan to attend both the Manning event and the next version of Reboot Alberta. I suspect that even after these events, I will not see a mainstream party today that can satisfy me. But I am becoming more and more confident that I will be surrounded by Albertans who are starting to ask what that might look like.

As many of you are very well aware, I have increased much of my blogging around Provincial political discussion. It probably takes up well over half of my posts, and obviously that is because I am impassioned on the future of this province, and my city.

But, I am not a politician, I am not a paid journalist, nor am I even 100% convicted in my opinions. I am a regular family man, business owner and citizen. The more I look inward to my own thoughts, beliefs and opinions, the more complicated I find the discussion around what makes for good government. Don't even get me started about politics, which clearly has very little to do with government.

What I do know however is that the far end of the political spectrums are the playgrounds of the ideologue. Because free speech is something that cements our very societal foundation, it would be ridiculous to criticize their right to say what they do. Because also, you can't influence the opinion of a close-minded ideologue, it would be a waste of energy to even try. Trust me on this one, I have wasted a lot of my energy falling for the trap of debating them, only to find that the joke was on me.

But what we can do and we should do, at least when it comes to politics, is to shift our glance to whom the ideologues' are supporting politically. We should ask why that party accepts them, even if they have to plug their noses doing so, to gain the votes of their followers.

Next to Grassroots, I think the term Big-Tent is one of the worst metaphors used in politics. If you are a party, or a party leader who professes to be a "Big-Tent" party, then that should mean you want people with all types of beliefs to be a member of your party, AND be able to express them freely in your party. In my opinion, a true big tent party would actually have policies and tools which create an environment that fosters this type of open-thinking. Not only that, and perhaps more importantly, the party would have leadership that actually disapproves of ideological close-mindedness, speaking out against it, to help the discussion along. As a business owner, and leader, I do know that it is my responsibility to foster an environment that is healthy and respectful for all of my employees. A parties leader should do the same for all of the residents of their "big-tent".

I have always thought this would actually be good politics. Don't even get me started on how this would be great for good governance.

Today's politics, which are based on gaining power then sharing it back to the interests that help you get elected, are perpetuating the problem. In my opinion however, and many of my good friends believe I am being naive, I think that the world is changing. I think that transparency of information, the ability for nearly anybody to publish their opinions, and the highly increased ability for people to come together (first on electronic social networks, but then together in person), makes it more and more difficult for politicians to maintain exclusivity on the distribution of power. We have more power today, and it's time we started using it.

The party that finds a new way to govern within this new reality, will be the one that wins the votes of the masses. In my opinion, no party in Alberta today does this. I'm not prepared to accept that it's not possible to blend good government and good politics. But right now, as I see it, that will take a new party, using new techniques.

p.s. If you visit the link above, you will see that Reboot Alberta is rapidly becoming the place where like-minded Alberta citizens can challenge a new way of thinking for democracy in Alberta. I was at the first event and it was attended by a perfect balance of rural, urban, young and old. Contrary to popular belief, this is not the the home for anyone who would subscribe to old terms like Liberal or Conservative. That's why I love it, and you should spend some time on the site reading about the movement. I have no doubts that the next political party that I support in this Province will get it's start from this movement. Their next event is at the end of February in Kananaskis, and if you would like to discuss how democracy can be practiced in the 21st century, then I would suggest you come along.