Jason Kenney — newly minted leader of Alberta’s brand new United Conservative Party — cleverly laid a trap. He covered it in leaves, backed up 50 meters and … sprinted straight at it, letting the jaws snap shut around his own ankle.

Putting it another way: Kenney’s position on Bill 24 — the Notley government’s legislation on ‘gay-straight alliances’ (GSAs) in the province’s schools — is a strategic disaster.

Despite what they say, the governing New Democrats did not plan this bill before Kenney became UCP leader. But when the former Harper cabinet minister himself brought GSAs into the political arena — by suggesting teachers be allowed to alert parents when their children join a GSA, effectively ‘outing’ them — Premier Rachel Notley and her people saw the opportunity. So they introduced Bill 24 (which makes it illegal for school officials to tell parents when a child joins a GSA) in order to force the UCP into following its own political narrative — that of an aggressively socially-conservative party imposing top-down control on MLAs.

And unlike Ontario PC Leader Patrick Brown — another former Conservative MP who stepped into provincial politics — Kenney did his enemy’s work for them. He lobbed the slow-pitch and allowed the NDP to hit it out of the park.

In Ontario, Premier Kathleen Wynne tried to pigeonhole the new PC leader by introducing an anti-Islamophobia motion similar to the one introduced by the Trudeau Liberals. But instead of debating a potential challenge to free speech — and opening his party up to accusations of intolerance — Brown whipped the vote and the motion passed. So Wynne was unable to paint the PCs in Ontario as anti-Islamic bigots.

Had Kenney worked to dispel any notion that the UCP would choose this hill to die on, he wouldn’t be where he is today with Bill 24 — in a corner. Had Kenney worked to dispel any notion that the UCP would choose this hill to die on, he wouldn’t be where he is today with Bill 24 — in a corner.

Brown saw the trap and calmly side-stepped it. Kenney didn’t.

While running for the leadership of the PCs, campaigning for unity and then running for the leadership of the UCP, Kenney repeatedly told members that he would not run the UCP like the his old boss Stephen Harper ran the federal Conservatives; all votes of conscience would be free votes. Further, he stated that his goal was to create a free-enterprise party which did not discuss contentious social issues — to make the UCP tent as big and as welcoming as possible.

Well, that didn’t last long, did it?

Mr. Kenney told the media that the caucus had come to a decision — basically implying a whipped vote — although only eight UCP members were there to vote against the bill moving to second reading. The others were not present to vote, and even without those eight (and that of Independent MLA Derek Fildebrandt), the bill moved to second reading with the support of all remaining members. So, the charge levied against Kenney — that his office would be dictating not only policy, but talking points and votes — has been shown to be correct.

And if Kenney was serious about the goal of taking the spotlight away from social issues and focusing his efforts on the economy and getting Alberta’s fiscal house in order, it’s hard to see how this fight helps him. As with Brown’s PCs, the UCP easily could have voted in favour of the bill, dispelling the notion that they’re a party of social conservatism. (As it stands, the bill covers all education boards in the province and does not single out the Catholic ones, so religious liberty is not threatened by its passage). Had he worked to dispel any notion that the UCP would choose this hill to die on, he wouldn’t be where he is today with Bill 24 — in a corner.

Instead, Kenney walked into a glass door he himself closed. He has tarnished the brand of the new party within weeks of taking control, proving himself to be just as short-sighted and ideological as the NDP.

If Kenney’s this clumsy when it comes to the traps he sets himself, you have to wonder how he’ll avoid the ones he doesn’t know about.

The views, opinions and positions expressed by all iPolitics columnists and contributors are the author’s alone. They do not inherently or expressly reflect the views, opinions and/or positions of iPolitics.