In a recent discussion on Twitter Chris LaBossiere posted the statement:
Every party creates policy from it’s members. In the case of the WAP I think they hide behind that to defend bad or little policy.
My comment to that was to say:
Chris, creating policy that no one listens to is not the same as being bound by it. That is the difference.
Chris was confused at my response, so I want to elaborate without being restricted to just 140 words. So therefore I am posting this on the blog.
Chris seems to think that the Wildrose Alliance party somehow hides behind its policy. I do not see it as being hidden but being bound by it. As for little I think that is in the eye of the beholder. In fact I would argue that the Progressive Conservatives have little or bad policy. When the Alberta PCs come out with a policy book for public consumption it will be a first.
Over the past years the PC governments have pooh-poohed their own policies, and they have viewed the policy making exercise with a skeptical view.
Do not take my word for it here is Mark Norris from 2005:
“I do know that ministers I used to work with were very, very flippant about what was coming out of the policy conventions,” he said. “It bothered me then and it bothers me now. It’s important when a constituency goes to the effort to make a resolution that you respect it and bring it forward and give it its due.”
So to make this clear. I think the Alberta PCs have never felt that bound by their own policies. With respect I think that their policy conventions are policy in a vacuum, they quickly die for lack of oxygen, or interest. Considering there was more interest in fighting the rise of membership costs than policy setting in past years it says a lot. And the battles over Bill 50 at this years convention appeared staged rather than listening to the rank and file.
Now here is where I see the Alliance as different. Danielle Smith does not just give lip service to being bound by policies. She does not hide behind them she is rather upholding a tradition of reform oriented people in Alberta that the leader of the party needs to be held accountable to the party. That is not ducking responsibility that showing faith in the members.
Policy conventions are hard fought things, having sat through more than my fair share I can tell you I find them irritating and boring, mostly because I am a less is more kind of person. The Alliance like the UFA- Socred-Reform traditions they stem from believe in the right of the person to have a voice in government. Each tried, at least initially to offer their best version democracy. In some cases it was a fiasco but at least they tried.
Policy which stems from members can be too simple, too narrow, too complicated in the wrong ways, to be useful. But proper vetting by constituency associations and policy committees and eventually the membership voting as a whole can eliminate bad policy. The Federal Conservatives, thanks to their Reform roots have got this down. Eventually the Alliance will reach that same position.
Given time and talent and collective will the party policies will cover a broad range of issues from a conservative perspective. I think what they have now is not bad, while I might not agree with one or two it does not make them bad, nor some how very little.
As well Danielle has said all along the leadership trail she would be bound by the members, she believes that to be important for a leader. I fail to see how she is hiding, when asked she generally states her opinion.
So I disagree strongly with all parts of Chris’s argument, I believe that the Wildrose Alliance policy is broad, and that being bound by it does not mean you are hiding. I think progressives in the province should take Danielle at her word, bring their ideas forward and see if they become policy. Then Danielle would be bound by their “good” ideas too.
Tags: policies, Politics, Wildrose Alliance
