Contrary to the editorialist’s spin, the motion in question (Res #030) didn’t come close in defining the weekend as far as the UCP’s social platform. Clearly evident at the convention was an overall mood that the delegates had enough of assaults on their freedom and the undermining of parental rights in education. Something like 30 motions overall, related to school choice and parental rights, were ratified by the UCP members with overwhelming support, ranging from 71 per cent to 96 per cent approval. Twenty-one of those motions passed with 71 per cent approval under the umbrella of a topical Group Motion on the topic of Education (the largest such group by far). Group Motions were collections of motions by topic which arrived at the convention having garnered >85 per cent support in an online survey open to all members that determined their priority to be heard at the convention. Two other education motions, falling under a Group Motion on Community, passed with 85 per cent support. As well, two individual motions on rights of parents in education, having received >85% in the online survey, received 90 to 96 per cent support by the members. The resolution receiving 90 per cent support called for “protecting authentic school choice” by allowing schools “to determine their own policies and practices based on each school’s unique character, values and beliefs”. Another motion, part of a Prioritized Motion (created at the discretion of the UCP Policy Committee) on School Choice passed with 71 per cent support. Finally, with the limited time available, one education motion, part of General Resolutions, that is, resolutions which had received greater than 50 per cent but less than 85 per cent support in the online survey, passed with 94 per cent support. For anyone attending the AGM, it was obvious that education was a key priority for grassroots members, including Saturday evening when the loudest and longest applause was when Jason Kenney talked about the curriculum re-write. To top it off, despite McIver’s inappropriate rhetoric (including fear-mongering that passing the motion would “severely hurt our chances at winning”), the majority wouldn’t be bullied and passed Res #030, which was separated from the Group Motion on Education for greater discussion, with 57 per cent support. Even, Harrison Fleming, Alberta co-ordinator of LGBTory, a national group of gay conservative activists, declared on CBC News Calgary, that the motion was misunderstood and that “The reality is that I firmly believe that this motion is generally more in line with what the majority of Alberta parents feel.” As well, he dismissed McIver as having been “caught up in a rhetorical moment”. Why does the UCP have to “fight to find a home for the more progressive (read left-leaning) in their numbers”? Noteworthy, that one doesn’t hear the media pressing the progressive left, like the NDP, characteristically progressive (really regressive) on both social and fiscal issues, to find a home for social conservatives! The future belongs to a United Conservative Party who listens to their base and who cares more about what their supporters think than to march to the shrill tune of the media. Ron Voss
