But the UCP’s pushback, by definition, is reactionary, embedded in a hunger to return to the less volatile, more prosperous days of Canada.
I used to have a boss at work where every single idea I took to him got the same response, “No.” I’m not saying every idea I have is a good one. Plenty of them are iffy. But every single one of them turned down?
It’s hard to imagine that the United Conservatives would vote no-confidence in Smith, given she handily won a recent election, is doing well enough in the polls, and has generally kept her promises. It’s even more difficult to comprehend a party that would twice elect large majority governments would then turn against its own leader, as the UCP already did with party founder Jason Kenney.
The Kenney ouster came under exceptional circumstances, the party shattered by COVID policy and mandates. There would be no such excuse if Smith were to somehow lose her leadership just now. It would come across as madness.
But the UCP’s pushback, by definition, is reactionary, embedded in a hunger to return to the less volatile, more prosperous days of Canada under prime ministers Mulroney, Chretien, Martin and Harper. It’s a sane response but it can also come off as negative, a focus on shutting down things as opposed to pushing a positive vision. This is what is off-kilter about the thrust of the 36 UCP resolutions. They’re almost all about saying no, no, no.
They’re saying no on the social front. Don’t allow trans women into women’s washrooms. Stop public venues or publicly-funded groups from holding sexually explicit performances of topless women or bottomless men for minors. Stop teachers from providing any kind of instruction on sexuality or gender identity without written parental permission. Stop public funding of all medications, treatments and surgeries fpr sex alteration practices. Stop anyone from identifying as anything other than either male or female on government documents.
And saying no on the energy front. Stop CO2 from being labelled as a pollutant and abandon “net-zero” targets. Stop any federal carbon tax.
They also say no on governance issues. Don’t allow unions to donate to political parties. Stop all federal and international bodies within Alberta from violating provincial jurisdiction. Stop municipalities from making major changes to land-use and zoning without a plebiscite. Stop the government from forcing citizens to have digital apps for identification.
Of course, many of these resolutions are solid ideas. And perhaps there’s no other successful way to fight off Trudeau-ism without such fierce resistance. But the overall impression is a party fighting for the past but unfocused on the best path forward. There’s no ultimate win for the UCP or other conservative parties without proposing a better way.
The UCP resolutions do push some positive changes that many Albertans will applaud, including several land stewardship resolutions proposing better water conservation and forest fire prevention, removing barriers for small farms to thrive, pushing for parental rights, a policy guaranteeing free speech and non-disruptive assembly in universities, and another strengthening the rights of all Albertans to be treated equally, especially in hiring decisions, this in the face of many institutions and organizations which have become preoccupied with preferential treatment for some races and sexes over others.
Such resolutions take the high ground. It’s this advantageous position where any political party with a future needs to make camp. Is the UCP such a party?