Rath, Wilson, Sylvestre and their cabal.....nothing but Bafflegab, Bluster, Bullying and B.S.....
If they had any guts they would quit hiding under the UPC umbrella and form a Provincial Separation Party with a competent leader along with a platform laying put what a independent AB would look like and the challenges.
That would require hard work . It’s much easier to flood comments sections on social media with bile and attacks and complain incessantly. They are not serious people . If you even try to have serious conversation about policy and costs , it ends up with them name calling you and going on about liberals .
I can’t help but notice that Pierre Poilievre is right about everything, delivered a wonderful, inspiring speech, and he is, naturally, ignored by Canadians.
Brian Lilley, to his credit, published the speech in its entirety.
No silly notions of hegemony, middle powers, or “pluralateralism”, catalyzing (sorry, catalysing), optimizing, or synergistically arriving at derived solutions; just straight talk from the head, and from the heart.
Well-done, Mr. Poilievre.
For shame, Canadian leftover, Liberal, subsidized media.
What on earth are you talking about? His speech was often praised in media, if not agreed with in content (“right about everything” is your own personal hyperbole, I assume). Pierre Poilievre's problem isn’t that he can’t give a good speech, or formulate a good policy idea, it’s that he’s so broadly and deeply disliked by Canadians that nothing he says resonates outside of his core support. Which — deeply ironically — is also what ended Justin Trudeau.
If he's good at policy and good at speaking, why is he so broadly hated by so many? How did he get framed the way he has?
I ask people this and either they can't really answer, resort to vibes, or rhyme off what are effectively conspiracy theories.
Oh no, he ate and apple that time (while responding to the most utterly bad faith questioning which still ended up being the narrative that cost him an election).
The world changed but he stuck with the same strategy; he didn't meet the moment and we all saw it; his comms were a disaster when we needed leadership.
Compare and contrast Pierre Poilievre with another Conservative: Michael Chong. In the same 2011-2015 parliament where Chong got the Reform Act passed with cross-partisan support, Poilievre mocked the countless critics of his "Fair Elections Act" before accommodating them at the last minute before passing his Bill.
The Reform Act would be consequential in empowering the Conservative caucus to remove Erin O'Toole. What was left of the Fair Elections Act was repealed by the Trudeau government.
By comparison to another Conservative, Poilievre is demonstrably a policy lightweight and an unaccomplished and divisive politician who needlessly creates enemies and who deserved to be disliked accordingly.
"If he's good at policy and good at speaking, why is he so broadly hated by so many? How did he get framed the way he has?" — populations are fickle and who they like ebbs and flows, but as anyone who experienced high school should know: once you're broadly disliked, it's not easy to climb out of that pit, and if you're hated then it's well nigh impossible. It's fairly obvious why Poilievre is broadly disliked — he is genuinely excellent at being obnoxious, and despite that being a sort of niche superpower it grates on the vast majority of people. Contrast that with Stephen Harper, who was generally acknowledged to be a great guy in private and not broadly seen as obnoxious in public.
Mr. Poilievre’s speech was not ignored, and I should have been more careful with my language.
I should have said, Mr. Poilievre’s speech was not given the attention it deserved by Canadians.
That Mr. Poilievre has been right about everything, is far from hyperbole; should you wish that I list the subjects, concerns, & solutions he has discussed, I would be happy to oblige.
I don’t disagree for a second that he is personally disliked by you, by many Canadians, and by our ruthless, toothless, incurious excuse for a media; what concerns me is that Canadians continue to buy the myth, and fall for the ruse, over and again.
CTV News accused him of being "overly partisan", a term essentially never uttered toward any other federal political party even when it is far more true than it was here.
I seriously think every mainstream news outlet has daily meetings with the agenda item "how are we going to make the Conservative leader look bad today" and literally workshop ideas about how to spin news. This is the kind of thing that will come out one day and everyone will go "yah, that kind of tracks".
Media bias competes for number one issue in this country. That sounds like a bold statement but so many other issues flow from it.
Our elites would never have manufactured consent for the most ruinous policies including mass immigration, limitless "reconciliation" scams, destruction and shaming of heritage, non negotiable socialist medical care, environmental panic against the resource sector, or promotion of countless fringe leftist movements as mainstream, without thorough media capture.
And with a fair media playing field during elections, the Liberals would have been out on their asses as early as 2019.
Oh but nobody watches mainstream media, nobody reads papers? This shit appears on everyone's phone, often as pop ups or if you swipe right from your main screen. I've disabled it on mine but this along with snippets of TV news fed through social media feeds is the main way some of the most persuadable and low-info groups get their information.
Is it somehow unintuitive that a man whose *entire working career* has been built within the same political party might be a little more partisan than most other politicians?
For what it is worth, I heard of the National Observer's Max Fawcett criticizing Stephen Carter for organizing activism against a leave vote via the machinery of the Alberta Liberal Party. Carter is not a party leader, but he is a political activist of a different flavour.
My favourite politicians, in no particular order, remain Brian Mulroney, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and John A. Macdonald.
I, too, have been critical of the manner in which the Conservative Party fought the last election.
Botched nominee/candidate selections, lack of preparedness, and an inability or unwillingness to espouse the idea that Donald Trump was not serious about the “51st State nonsense”.
If you think I am being partisan for a particular party - as opposed to offering frank truth-telling at the expense of a party/leader which/who fails to ever change its/his approach - you almost certainly will fail to guess how I voted in recent federal elections.
KRM made a specific accusation of media bias and double-standards, which is a general claim that goes beyond this specific incident. (For what it's worth, I agree with Paul Wells that Poilievre made both positive and inaccurate partisan comments in the same speech, while still being overall helpful to the federalist cause).
I chose to side-step a general open-ended and subjective debate about the overall integrity of the media and I instead invited KRM to take seriously the simple logical observation that a man who owes his entire career to one political party would almost certainly be exceptionally partisan, simply as a matter of human nature.
"Ten years ago, under the leadership of a great Albertan, Stephen Harper, there was no separatist movement in Alberta.
"The LIBERAL Party carried out a publicly stated plan to phase out Alberta’s biggest industry, using anti-development laws that are all still in place today.
"Beyond that, LIBERAL governments have intruded into provincial jurisdiction, seizing the lawful firearms of law-abiding Alberta farmers, First Nations and rural people.
"Some of my earliest memories are of my parents losing their savings – a home and two little rental properties – had spent their 20s and 30s saving for. Interest rates and inflation, combined with a massive LIBERAL recession – all driven by the Pierre TRUDEAU government – smashed all of the things we had worked so hard to build."
LIBERALS, LIBERALS, LIBERALS! Yeah, absolutely no partisanship here, lol.
Pierre is not a victim of media . He was riding high to a 250 seat super majority with that same media . He is not the guy to do this , and until the conservatives replace him , they are not gojng anywhere. I personally like him, but I also have to read the room and his results over the last 18 months would have him removed by any serious business .
Err. I take it you missed you Robyn Erback's piece in yesterday's Globe and Mail praising Poilievre's speech. And - my guess - if I opened other newspapers I would find more. But - the damn Liberal subsidized media, eh?
Oh, and while you are searching for other positive articles, please reference the Editorial Board of the Globe, whose headline went something like “Poilievre Fails to Meet the Moment”.
For more than a year now, separatist leaders have been making all kinds of wild, unchallenged claims about Canada and its defenders — and suddenly they’re crying foul about what the other side has dared to put forth.
Direct criticism is perceived to be an “attack.” Counterarguments are perceived to be “fearmongering,” a standard to which they’d never hold themselves or their own claims and arguments.
END QUOTE
Well observed.
In my view this is how a still-immature youth behaves when called out by peers or authority figures.
Some among the callow, ne’er-do-wells do grow up, eventually. However, others morph into monsters.
You know, like the lying and ignorant corrupt ignoramus the Americans have seen fit to elect as president.
Needless to say, such people will stop at nothing to misrepresent the facts to suit their goals.
For me, the amateurish nature of the current separatist leadership is what's holding things back. This shouldn't be mistaken, I think, for a lack of sentiment in the general population. That group is waiting for a competent leader of the separatist forces to show up.
Why do our fellow citizens want to leave Canada? That sentiment wouldn't exist if there weren't reasons for its existence.
For me, I think this is too focused on the players and not the underlying reason why they exist in the first place. otherwise this continues and continues until something breaks.
I don't think you can separate the amateurish leadership from the unserious economic premises of the current movement. Serious, competent people understand that seeking independence is not a solution to the economic grievances cited. Actual solutions involve a longer-term slog within Confederation.
Great point. For me nobody gets 100% of what they want. Generations of feckless politicians is generally my take on all of them from all parties. For me, the seed goes back way before they discovered oil in Leduc. (I came of age under the NEP. You never forget losing everything you've worked your life for.) You bring up an interesting point about people under financial stress - that make perfect sense. I look forward to the vote.
The attempt to couch the case for separatism in economic arguments and the freak-out when challenged on those arguments highlights a huge insecurity among separatists regarding the strength of their cause. It suggests that they don't think there's support for an independent Alberta if it can't deliver economic benefits, let alone imposes costs.
It also indicates either a terror of having to address criticism of their claims, or a fundamental incompetence and unseriousness in identifying and addressing potential problems. "You're wrong - everything's going to be great!" and "Shut up!" are not considered actual arguments in fields like finance, medicine, engineering, or law. Not better are arguments rooted in superficial examples and hand-waving.
In the end, ignoring the problems doesn't make them go away any more than avoiding a visit to the doctor means that you don't actually have a health issue. It's almost always better to identify potential problems, acknowledge the risks, develop a plan to mitigate the risks, and then decide if you're willing to accept the residual risk. In my experience, though, people tend to fool themselves about being willing to accept the risk: instead, they're almost always pretending that the risk doesn't exist, because they're incredibly angry and indignant when it actually materializes.
The media wants the OPPOSITION leader to praise the Liberal government, what a crock, do we not have a recession!!, Do we not have another $30 billion difficient , do we have lower groceries, do we have less food bank visits,do we have no tent cities in every major city in Canada. Time for CBC, CTV and global to quit fawning over a failed PM.
I don't know about "the media", but I'll tell you what I want... I want the opposition to support Canada **especially** when talking to Americans. Look at the contrast between Mr. Jivani's trip to the US and Mr. Poilievre's. I understand that Mr. Poilievre's trip including his appearance on Joe Rogan was coordinated with the Prime Minister's office. That's an example of Mr. Poilievre working with the government, not undermining with the Yanks.
On the other hand, Mr. Jivani went to the US to take the American's side and crap on Canada before coming back here and advocate for the Americans.
Quite frankly, he should have been tossed from cabinet the very next day, with Mr. Poilievre giving him a public dressing down because public humiliation sends a very clear message about how the Conservative party looks at quislings. Re-entry to caucus not assured and only considered after Mr. Jivani gives a convincing grovelling public apology.
But back to Mr. Poilievre... kudos for working with the government and using his unique opportunities as a Conservative to make Canada's case in the US.
It's usually called His Majesty's *Loyal* Opposition. They've got a constitutional duty to criticize the government, of course, but above all the expectation is that they're loyal to the country that they aspire to govern. Criticize how the government handles separatists by all means, but there's got to be a common front in opposing separatism.
If you're talking about the annual deficit I think it's back up to $70 billion, after widely reported correction downward and a less well reported correction back up.
As the Leader of the Federal Government’s Opposition he should be making the case for Canada. Premier Smith willfully demonizes the Federal Government and promotes misinformation about whose role in Confederation is what. While Poilievere is walking a political tightrope, he doesn’t need to pander to Separatists. He needs to remind separatist-curious Albertans what they already enjoy by being part of Canada AND help give voice to legitimate grievances. Anything less and Poilievre, whose party holds the majority of seats in Alberta, is failing to show up ahead of the Referendum. (PS He also just regurgitated words previously said by Premier Smith in January. They weren’t that brilliant.)
The GDP argument is puzzling. Is the author comparing Canadian GDP per capita including or excluding Alberta? An appropriate comparison should be excluding Alberta from the Canadian totalIMO. And a better one - again IMO - would also take the Quebec nation out of the equation.
The separation issue is, to a large degree, built on alienation and dissatisfation--from the East and with relationship history. Those who have experienced Eastern ignorance, Ottawa slight of hand, provincial constitutional inequities and second-class citizenship must see meaningful improvement--not just some vague arguments about promised/threatened economic success or failure.
At the riskof being indelicate, pipelines, interprovincial restrictions and "the Quebec takers" need action to avoid the inevitable "pile of feces" on the horizon.
Confederation cannot continue with both Alberta and Quebec remaining. Their perspective and desires are mutually exclusive. ROC will eventually have to choose (pick Alberta!).
Gaz, you've triggered my sense of woke humour. I believe there are a number of "non-binary" solutions avaailable to the ROC. And, despite 159 years of ignorance, I think easterners will mature, assess the financial and political devastation of an incomplete Canada and discover that a healthy and wealthy Alberta would be a nice offset to a constant and irritating séparation provocatrice.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and it is not a sin to disagree with you, Rob. Disagreeing does not make people into the malcontents that you seem to believe are everywhere. I am very tired of the left demonizing everyone who disagrees with them. I see an element of running down those who disagree with you that is reminiscent of gaslighting in this article. Please stop and realize that separatists are our neighbours and fellow Albertans and this article is not helpful.
Since 1955,Alberta has been trying to build an oil pipeline to the East,to share with the rest of Canada. “No!” Is the answer. A pipeline will never be built to the West coast,you know it. The East can’t even build a high speed rail train,mark my words. For over 20 years a private enterprise has been trying to build a track,and rail system from Calgary to Banff. Ottawa,Banff Park still says ‘No.’ Following an abandoned rail line,and all electric system. I ,personally am leaning towards the separatist side. Mainstream media gleefully published Jean Chrétien comments,while critiquing Pierre Poilievre.
In the famous pipeline debate of 1956, then PM Louis ST Laurent and the governing Liberals forced Ontario to take Alberta oil even though it was more expensive at the time than middle eastern crude. The Enbridge line from Alberta to Ontario was then built. The federal government also convinced the Americans to start buying Alberta crude even though the Americans were still net crude exporters at that time and were concerned about taking foreign crude as a matter of national security.
Advocating for the pipeline was also judged so important by the St. Laurent Liberals that they pursued it even though it ultimately helped bring down their government.
I agree that Rath (who made millions representing Indian Bands in land claims against the Feds, but I digress ) and Sylvestra have grabbed the mic and are the de facto head of the movement. However I implore you to watch Keith Wilson and his debate against Jason Kenny or any clips from CBC where the drive by smears fail. You could also listen to Jay Hill. 11 years of Liberal rule, and with no end in sight, should scare anyone in the West.
This piece is sharp and largely correct, but it leaves out the most important context on Poilievre. His “Canada is broken” mantra and years of relentless grievance politics and demonizing half of Canadians were the most reliable fuel on this fire. He didn’t just fail to prevent it; he helped build it. His call for civility now isn’t a principle, it’s arithmetic. These voters are a major part of his base.
For me, saying that Pierre Poilievre is just playing politics by saying "Canada is broken" misses the point of why so many people are actually angry. People aren't upset because of a slogan; they’re upset because their daily lives became significantly harder under Justin Trudeau’s leadership. They are upset because the government service they need is not fit for purpose.
Under Katy Perry's new boyfriend's watch, the dream of homeownership was replaced by a housing market that keeps young families priced out. He oversaw an era where the cost of living exploded. (Trump surely doesn't help but things were crap way before he emerged from his cave.)
When the machinery of a nation and its health care systems, its housing affordability, and its economic stability starts to fail people start looking for a culprit.
I can't stand Poilievre. But this is so not on him.
To be clear: I'm not pinning the state of Canada on Poilievre. He didn't create the struggles people are feeling; housing affordability, cost of living, health care capacity. Those are real, and the frustration with the Trudeau years on those files (justified or not) is shared by many.
What is on Poilievre though is the narrative. For fifteen years he has been the country's most prominent and consistent amplifier of the idea that Canada is fundamentally broken; not struggling with real problems that require real solutions, but rotten at the core and barely worth defending. Smith and he have been in harmony the last few years. Together they didn't manufacture the grievances; they distorted and inflated them.
Yes, some things in Canada are worse than they were fifteen years ago. Some things are better. The level of variation is normal.
What isn't normal is the sustained, coordinated campaign of mischaracterization that frames standard political failure as national collapse.
A reasonable view of a broad suite of objective measures shows that Canada, for all it's problems, is in a very strong position overall. The world sees it. It's why we have the top credit rating, and high trust in our democratic institutions and faith in each other. We're doing far better than most. We are so clearly not "broken."
The person who spent fifteen years telling Canadians otherwise should not now be handed the microphone to lead them back to confidence in themselves. That's my point.
For me, I suspect a good chunk of the citizenry would agree that Canada is quite broken and has been for a very long time. All one has to do is interact with a government service like, say, Veterans Affairs that the liberals took $4.2 billion out of their annual budget to make it look like they hit the big 2% GDP requirement that it took a Trump to get Canada to finally take seriously.
The country has two separatist movements now. Alberta doesn't even need to separate to flex its autonomy, they can do any number of things like stop collecting taxes for the federal government for example.
If the SCC puts any limitations on the notwithstanding clause, expect a Quebec referendum at the earliest possible date. Canada has two separatist movements now. One of them could have been avoided as it had been brewing for decades and for me, a pox on Liberal and Conservative governments for allowing it to happen.
Pandemic, for me, was the catalyst for massive change which we are seeing play out at the moment all over the globe. Canada must change as well or it will be changed.
Poilievre is a symptom of a large problem for the conservatives - people I think, are tired as hell of the BS. Poilievre is not the guy to form a government for one simple reason: he is unlikeable. People only vote for those they like and trust.
Under Poilievre, the CPC is the grievance party. I don't see that changing until the CPC changes.
A country that cannot defend itself is broken. (There are tons of examples.)
I think that Justin Trudeau created a permanent rupture in the social and political contract, and I think a lot of the eastern establishment doesn't get that yet. If Canada is to be repaired from its unserious brokenness, serious constitutional talks are going to have to happen.
One has to wonder if Mr. Breakenridge is a regular reader of The Line. If so, he would know there has been plenty of federalist hyperbole printed here. Different side of the same coin as Mr. Rath, a thoroughly dislikeable character. And the editors are appropriately unapologetic in supporting Confederation - this is their rag.
"An election is no time to discuss serious issues", attributed to PM Campbell, rings true for referendums. So most of what is spoken and written this summer will be rubbish. The separatist movement will continue after losing the referendum, with the saner Alberta Transition Council perhaps leading the way. Regardless, the structural faults in Confederation will result its dissolution, it is just a matter of time. Patience is a virtue.
The stench of separatist bullshit hasn't been countered by PP's welcome but late speech. Interested to see if his whole Alberta caucus concurs or if they're going to follow the lead of the UCP caucus and remain silent and sycophantic?
Rath, Wilson, Sylvestre and their cabal.....nothing but Bafflegab, Bluster, Bullying and B.S.....
If they had any guts they would quit hiding under the UPC umbrella and form a Provincial Separation Party with a competent leader along with a platform laying put what a independent AB would look like and the challenges.
"if they had any guts..."
exactly
That would require hard work . It’s much easier to flood comments sections on social media with bile and attacks and complain incessantly. They are not serious people . If you even try to have serious conversation about policy and costs , it ends up with them name calling you and going on about liberals .
100% correct. And where is the leader of the Alberta Republican Party, Cam Davies? Last I heard he's laying low in the US.
Probably with Parker?
I can’t help but notice that Pierre Poilievre is right about everything, delivered a wonderful, inspiring speech, and he is, naturally, ignored by Canadians.
Brian Lilley, to his credit, published the speech in its entirety.
No silly notions of hegemony, middle powers, or “pluralateralism”, catalyzing (sorry, catalysing), optimizing, or synergistically arriving at derived solutions; just straight talk from the head, and from the heart.
Well-done, Mr. Poilievre.
For shame, Canadian leftover, Liberal, subsidized media.
What on earth are you talking about? His speech was often praised in media, if not agreed with in content (“right about everything” is your own personal hyperbole, I assume). Pierre Poilievre's problem isn’t that he can’t give a good speech, or formulate a good policy idea, it’s that he’s so broadly and deeply disliked by Canadians that nothing he says resonates outside of his core support. Which — deeply ironically — is also what ended Justin Trudeau.
If he's good at policy and good at speaking, why is he so broadly hated by so many? How did he get framed the way he has?
I ask people this and either they can't really answer, resort to vibes, or rhyme off what are effectively conspiracy theories.
Oh no, he ate and apple that time (while responding to the most utterly bad faith questioning which still ended up being the narrative that cost him an election).
I can help...
The world changed but he stuck with the same strategy; he didn't meet the moment and we all saw it; his comms were a disaster when we needed leadership.
In other words he refused to make an election about Trump during an ongoing Liberal-manufactured everything polycrisis.
Yes! Seems you could have written the strategy. The results speak for themselves.
No, in fact, that was not helpful at all.
some are clearly beyond...
Compare and contrast Pierre Poilievre with another Conservative: Michael Chong. In the same 2011-2015 parliament where Chong got the Reform Act passed with cross-partisan support, Poilievre mocked the countless critics of his "Fair Elections Act" before accommodating them at the last minute before passing his Bill.
The Reform Act would be consequential in empowering the Conservative caucus to remove Erin O'Toole. What was left of the Fair Elections Act was repealed by the Trudeau government.
By comparison to another Conservative, Poilievre is demonstrably a policy lightweight and an unaccomplished and divisive politician who needlessly creates enemies and who deserved to be disliked accordingly.
"If he's good at policy and good at speaking, why is he so broadly hated by so many? How did he get framed the way he has?" — populations are fickle and who they like ebbs and flows, but as anyone who experienced high school should know: once you're broadly disliked, it's not easy to climb out of that pit, and if you're hated then it's well nigh impossible. It's fairly obvious why Poilievre is broadly disliked — he is genuinely excellent at being obnoxious, and despite that being a sort of niche superpower it grates on the vast majority of people. Contrast that with Stephen Harper, who was generally acknowledged to be a great guy in private and not broadly seen as obnoxious in public.
Brian, I appreciate your reply.
Mr. Poilievre’s speech was not ignored, and I should have been more careful with my language.
I should have said, Mr. Poilievre’s speech was not given the attention it deserved by Canadians.
That Mr. Poilievre has been right about everything, is far from hyperbole; should you wish that I list the subjects, concerns, & solutions he has discussed, I would be happy to oblige.
I don’t disagree for a second that he is personally disliked by you, by many Canadians, and by our ruthless, toothless, incurious excuse for a media; what concerns me is that Canadians continue to buy the myth, and fall for the ruse, over and again.
Thank you again for the thoughtful reply.
CTV News accused him of being "overly partisan", a term essentially never uttered toward any other federal political party even when it is far more true than it was here.
I seriously think every mainstream news outlet has daily meetings with the agenda item "how are we going to make the Conservative leader look bad today" and literally workshop ideas about how to spin news. This is the kind of thing that will come out one day and everyone will go "yah, that kind of tracks".
You make a good point.
If I were a journalist, I too would struggle with bias.
But I would also want to be the best, most respected journalist in the field, so I would be careful to monitor my own reporting.
That discipline is long gone, and unlikely to ever return in this Country.
Similarly, I listened to Mr. Poilievre’s speech in. Calgary in late January.
It was magnificent. It, too, was ignored or derided by the usual suspects.
Don’t like Pierre? Don’t like the Conservatives? Fine.
But do your job.
Great post, friend.
Media bias competes for number one issue in this country. That sounds like a bold statement but so many other issues flow from it.
Our elites would never have manufactured consent for the most ruinous policies including mass immigration, limitless "reconciliation" scams, destruction and shaming of heritage, non negotiable socialist medical care, environmental panic against the resource sector, or promotion of countless fringe leftist movements as mainstream, without thorough media capture.
And with a fair media playing field during elections, the Liberals would have been out on their asses as early as 2019.
Oh but nobody watches mainstream media, nobody reads papers? This shit appears on everyone's phone, often as pop ups or if you swipe right from your main screen. I've disabled it on mine but this along with snippets of TV news fed through social media feeds is the main way some of the most persuadable and low-info groups get their information.
Is it somehow unintuitive that a man whose *entire working career* has been built within the same political party might be a little more partisan than most other politicians?
For what it is worth, I heard of the National Observer's Max Fawcett criticizing Stephen Carter for organizing activism against a leave vote via the machinery of the Alberta Liberal Party. Carter is not a party leader, but he is a political activist of a different flavour.
If Max Fawcett is a journalist, I am a reincarnated Egyptian Princess.
Did he commit the alleged error of being too critical of your favourite political leader?
My favourite politicians, in no particular order, remain Brian Mulroney, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and John A. Macdonald.
I, too, have been critical of the manner in which the Conservative Party fought the last election.
Botched nominee/candidate selections, lack of preparedness, and an inability or unwillingness to espouse the idea that Donald Trump was not serious about the “51st State nonsense”.
So what's Max Fawcett's alleged critical error then?
The worst thing about the line is Stefan’s inane partisan commentary.
If you think I am being partisan for a particular party - as opposed to offering frank truth-telling at the expense of a party/leader which/who fails to ever change its/his approach - you almost certainly will fail to guess how I voted in recent federal elections.
Wtf does intuitive have to do with it? The speech was either partisan or not.
KRM made a specific accusation of media bias and double-standards, which is a general claim that goes beyond this specific incident. (For what it's worth, I agree with Paul Wells that Poilievre made both positive and inaccurate partisan comments in the same speech, while still being overall helpful to the federalist cause).
I chose to side-step a general open-ended and subjective debate about the overall integrity of the media and I instead invited KRM to take seriously the simple logical observation that a man who owes his entire career to one political party would almost certainly be exceptionally partisan, simply as a matter of human nature.
Human nature lol. The only thing worth debating is whether the speech was partisan. And you have failed to show that it was.
"Ten years ago, under the leadership of a great Albertan, Stephen Harper, there was no separatist movement in Alberta.
"The LIBERAL Party carried out a publicly stated plan to phase out Alberta’s biggest industry, using anti-development laws that are all still in place today.
"Beyond that, LIBERAL governments have intruded into provincial jurisdiction, seizing the lawful firearms of law-abiding Alberta farmers, First Nations and rural people.
"Some of my earliest memories are of my parents losing their savings – a home and two little rental properties – had spent their 20s and 30s saving for. Interest rates and inflation, combined with a massive LIBERAL recession – all driven by the Pierre TRUDEAU government – smashed all of the things we had worked so hard to build."
LIBERALS, LIBERALS, LIBERALS! Yeah, absolutely no partisanship here, lol.
Paul Wells was relatively complimentary WRT Poilievre’s latest speech, too.
Pierre is not a victim of media . He was riding high to a 250 seat super majority with that same media . He is not the guy to do this , and until the conservatives replace him , they are not gojng anywhere. I personally like him, but I also have to read the room and his results over the last 18 months would have him removed by any serious business .
He was right on this. Kind of a first for him. It doesn't change who he is.
Err. I take it you missed you Robyn Erback's piece in yesterday's Globe and Mail praising Poilievre's speech. And - my guess - if I opened other newspapers I would find more. But - the damn Liberal subsidized media, eh?
No, I did not miss that article.
In fact, I reread it to make sure I didn’t misinterpret it.
Ms. Urback suggested that Mr. Poilievre was a somewhat inauthentic Albertan,
having lived his adult in Ontario.
She referenced the opinion of other journalists that
Mr. Poilievre’s speech was too partisan.
She also criticized his notion that separatism in Alberta is a product of eleven years of Liberal failure, futility, and fecklessness.
She also said he was wearing the Captain Canada hat well, and that it looked good on him.
She did so while suggesting he is sort of the default pick to lead the pro-federalist side.
Hardly the most glowing recommendation.
Oh, and while you are searching for other positive articles, please reference the Editorial Board of the Globe, whose headline went something like “Poilievre Fails to Meet the Moment”.
Yes, quite the superlative, indeed.
QUOTE
For more than a year now, separatist leaders have been making all kinds of wild, unchallenged claims about Canada and its defenders — and suddenly they’re crying foul about what the other side has dared to put forth.
Direct criticism is perceived to be an “attack.” Counterarguments are perceived to be “fearmongering,” a standard to which they’d never hold themselves or their own claims and arguments.
END QUOTE
Well observed.
In my view this is how a still-immature youth behaves when called out by peers or authority figures.
Some among the callow, ne’er-do-wells do grow up, eventually. However, others morph into monsters.
You know, like the lying and ignorant corrupt ignoramus the Americans have seen fit to elect as president.
Needless to say, such people will stop at nothing to misrepresent the facts to suit their goals.
When a grown up takes over, there will be calamity.
“Morph into monsters”. When I was speed reading I read “Ministers” . Like ministers of the Crown. Seems to fit to me at least.
For me, the amateurish nature of the current separatist leadership is what's holding things back. This shouldn't be mistaken, I think, for a lack of sentiment in the general population. That group is waiting for a competent leader of the separatist forces to show up.
Why do our fellow citizens want to leave Canada? That sentiment wouldn't exist if there weren't reasons for its existence.
For me, I think this is too focused on the players and not the underlying reason why they exist in the first place. otherwise this continues and continues until something breaks.
I don't think you can separate the amateurish leadership from the unserious economic premises of the current movement. Serious, competent people understand that seeking independence is not a solution to the economic grievances cited. Actual solutions involve a longer-term slog within Confederation.
As for why people are sympathetic to the idea of seceding from Canada, I'd say the seed is legitimate grievances that are exacerbated by generations of feckless Alberta politicians. A further factor for some people seems to be some sort of personalization of the grievances. For example, people experiencing personal financial stress are more likely to support separatism, even if they have a relatively high income: https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canada/support-for-alberta-separatism-flat-struggling-high-earners-more-likely-supporters-poll/ar-AA21UajQ?ocid=socialshare
Great point. For me nobody gets 100% of what they want. Generations of feckless politicians is generally my take on all of them from all parties. For me, the seed goes back way before they discovered oil in Leduc. (I came of age under the NEP. You never forget losing everything you've worked your life for.) You bring up an interesting point about people under financial stress - that make perfect sense. I look forward to the vote.
The attempt to couch the case for separatism in economic arguments and the freak-out when challenged on those arguments highlights a huge insecurity among separatists regarding the strength of their cause. It suggests that they don't think there's support for an independent Alberta if it can't deliver economic benefits, let alone imposes costs.
It also indicates either a terror of having to address criticism of their claims, or a fundamental incompetence and unseriousness in identifying and addressing potential problems. "You're wrong - everything's going to be great!" and "Shut up!" are not considered actual arguments in fields like finance, medicine, engineering, or law. Not better are arguments rooted in superficial examples and hand-waving.
In the end, ignoring the problems doesn't make them go away any more than avoiding a visit to the doctor means that you don't actually have a health issue. It's almost always better to identify potential problems, acknowledge the risks, develop a plan to mitigate the risks, and then decide if you're willing to accept the residual risk. In my experience, though, people tend to fool themselves about being willing to accept the risk: instead, they're almost always pretending that the risk doesn't exist, because they're incredibly angry and indignant when it actually materializes.
The media wants the OPPOSITION leader to praise the Liberal government, what a crock, do we not have a recession!!, Do we not have another $30 billion difficient , do we have lower groceries, do we have less food bank visits,do we have no tent cities in every major city in Canada. Time for CBC, CTV and global to quit fawning over a failed PM.
I don't know about "the media", but I'll tell you what I want... I want the opposition to support Canada **especially** when talking to Americans. Look at the contrast between Mr. Jivani's trip to the US and Mr. Poilievre's. I understand that Mr. Poilievre's trip including his appearance on Joe Rogan was coordinated with the Prime Minister's office. That's an example of Mr. Poilievre working with the government, not undermining with the Yanks.
On the other hand, Mr. Jivani went to the US to take the American's side and crap on Canada before coming back here and advocate for the Americans.
Quite frankly, he should have been tossed from cabinet the very next day, with Mr. Poilievre giving him a public dressing down because public humiliation sends a very clear message about how the Conservative party looks at quislings. Re-entry to caucus not assured and only considered after Mr. Jivani gives a convincing grovelling public apology.
But back to Mr. Poilievre... kudos for working with the government and using his unique opportunities as a Conservative to make Canada's case in the US.
It's usually called His Majesty's *Loyal* Opposition. They've got a constitutional duty to criticize the government, of course, but above all the expectation is that they're loyal to the country that they aspire to govern. Criticize how the government handles separatists by all means, but there's got to be a common front in opposing separatism.
If you're talking about the annual deficit I think it's back up to $70 billion, after widely reported correction downward and a less well reported correction back up.
I meant $30billion more!!
As the Leader of the Federal Government’s Opposition he should be making the case for Canada. Premier Smith willfully demonizes the Federal Government and promotes misinformation about whose role in Confederation is what. While Poilievere is walking a political tightrope, he doesn’t need to pander to Separatists. He needs to remind separatist-curious Albertans what they already enjoy by being part of Canada AND help give voice to legitimate grievances. Anything less and Poilievre, whose party holds the majority of seats in Alberta, is failing to show up ahead of the Referendum. (PS He also just regurgitated words previously said by Premier Smith in January. They weren’t that brilliant.)
The GDP argument is puzzling. Is the author comparing Canadian GDP per capita including or excluding Alberta? An appropriate comparison should be excluding Alberta from the Canadian totalIMO. And a better one - again IMO - would also take the Quebec nation out of the equation.
The separation issue is, to a large degree, built on alienation and dissatisfation--from the East and with relationship history. Those who have experienced Eastern ignorance, Ottawa slight of hand, provincial constitutional inequities and second-class citizenship must see meaningful improvement--not just some vague arguments about promised/threatened economic success or failure.
At the riskof being indelicate, pipelines, interprovincial restrictions and "the Quebec takers" need action to avoid the inevitable "pile of feces" on the horizon.
Confederation cannot continue with both Alberta and Quebec remaining. Their perspective and desires are mutually exclusive. ROC will eventually have to choose (pick Alberta!).
Gaz, you've triggered my sense of woke humour. I believe there are a number of "non-binary" solutions avaailable to the ROC. And, despite 159 years of ignorance, I think easterners will mature, assess the financial and political devastation of an incomplete Canada and discover that a healthy and wealthy Alberta would be a nice offset to a constant and irritating séparation provocatrice.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and it is not a sin to disagree with you, Rob. Disagreeing does not make people into the malcontents that you seem to believe are everywhere. I am very tired of the left demonizing everyone who disagrees with them. I see an element of running down those who disagree with you that is reminiscent of gaslighting in this article. Please stop and realize that separatists are our neighbours and fellow Albertans and this article is not helpful.
Since 1955,Alberta has been trying to build an oil pipeline to the East,to share with the rest of Canada. “No!” Is the answer. A pipeline will never be built to the West coast,you know it. The East can’t even build a high speed rail train,mark my words. For over 20 years a private enterprise has been trying to build a track,and rail system from Calgary to Banff. Ottawa,Banff Park still says ‘No.’ Following an abandoned rail line,and all electric system. I ,personally am leaning towards the separatist side. Mainstream media gleefully published Jean Chrétien comments,while critiquing Pierre Poilievre.
There is no "abandoned rail line" between Calgary and Banff. There is the CPR.
In the famous pipeline debate of 1956, then PM Louis ST Laurent and the governing Liberals forced Ontario to take Alberta oil even though it was more expensive at the time than middle eastern crude. The Enbridge line from Alberta to Ontario was then built. The federal government also convinced the Americans to start buying Alberta crude even though the Americans were still net crude exporters at that time and were concerned about taking foreign crude as a matter of national security.
Advocating for the pipeline was also judged so important by the St. Laurent Liberals that they pursued it even though it ultimately helped bring down their government.
I agree that Rath (who made millions representing Indian Bands in land claims against the Feds, but I digress ) and Sylvestra have grabbed the mic and are the de facto head of the movement. However I implore you to watch Keith Wilson and his debate against Jason Kenny or any clips from CBC where the drive by smears fail. You could also listen to Jay Hill. 11 years of Liberal rule, and with no end in sight, should scare anyone in the West.
This piece is sharp and largely correct, but it leaves out the most important context on Poilievre. His “Canada is broken” mantra and years of relentless grievance politics and demonizing half of Canadians were the most reliable fuel on this fire. He didn’t just fail to prevent it; he helped build it. His call for civility now isn’t a principle, it’s arithmetic. These voters are a major part of his base.
For me, saying that Pierre Poilievre is just playing politics by saying "Canada is broken" misses the point of why so many people are actually angry. People aren't upset because of a slogan; they’re upset because their daily lives became significantly harder under Justin Trudeau’s leadership. They are upset because the government service they need is not fit for purpose.
Under Katy Perry's new boyfriend's watch, the dream of homeownership was replaced by a housing market that keeps young families priced out. He oversaw an era where the cost of living exploded. (Trump surely doesn't help but things were crap way before he emerged from his cave.)
When the machinery of a nation and its health care systems, its housing affordability, and its economic stability starts to fail people start looking for a culprit.
I can't stand Poilievre. But this is so not on him.
To be clear: I'm not pinning the state of Canada on Poilievre. He didn't create the struggles people are feeling; housing affordability, cost of living, health care capacity. Those are real, and the frustration with the Trudeau years on those files (justified or not) is shared by many.
What is on Poilievre though is the narrative. For fifteen years he has been the country's most prominent and consistent amplifier of the idea that Canada is fundamentally broken; not struggling with real problems that require real solutions, but rotten at the core and barely worth defending. Smith and he have been in harmony the last few years. Together they didn't manufacture the grievances; they distorted and inflated them.
Yes, some things in Canada are worse than they were fifteen years ago. Some things are better. The level of variation is normal.
What isn't normal is the sustained, coordinated campaign of mischaracterization that frames standard political failure as national collapse.
A reasonable view of a broad suite of objective measures shows that Canada, for all it's problems, is in a very strong position overall. The world sees it. It's why we have the top credit rating, and high trust in our democratic institutions and faith in each other. We're doing far better than most. We are so clearly not "broken."
The person who spent fifteen years telling Canadians otherwise should not now be handed the microphone to lead them back to confidence in themselves. That's my point.
For me, I suspect a good chunk of the citizenry would agree that Canada is quite broken and has been for a very long time. All one has to do is interact with a government service like, say, Veterans Affairs that the liberals took $4.2 billion out of their annual budget to make it look like they hit the big 2% GDP requirement that it took a Trump to get Canada to finally take seriously.
The country has two separatist movements now. Alberta doesn't even need to separate to flex its autonomy, they can do any number of things like stop collecting taxes for the federal government for example.
If the SCC puts any limitations on the notwithstanding clause, expect a Quebec referendum at the earliest possible date. Canada has two separatist movements now. One of them could have been avoided as it had been brewing for decades and for me, a pox on Liberal and Conservative governments for allowing it to happen.
Pandemic, for me, was the catalyst for massive change which we are seeing play out at the moment all over the globe. Canada must change as well or it will be changed.
Poilievre is a symptom of a large problem for the conservatives - people I think, are tired as hell of the BS. Poilievre is not the guy to form a government for one simple reason: he is unlikeable. People only vote for those they like and trust.
Under Poilievre, the CPC is the grievance party. I don't see that changing until the CPC changes.
A country that cannot defend itself is broken. (There are tons of examples.)
Yes, you've captured that mindset well.
I think that Justin Trudeau created a permanent rupture in the social and political contract, and I think a lot of the eastern establishment doesn't get that yet. If Canada is to be repaired from its unserious brokenness, serious constitutional talks are going to have to happen.
One has to wonder if Mr. Breakenridge is a regular reader of The Line. If so, he would know there has been plenty of federalist hyperbole printed here. Different side of the same coin as Mr. Rath, a thoroughly dislikeable character. And the editors are appropriately unapologetic in supporting Confederation - this is their rag.
"An election is no time to discuss serious issues", attributed to PM Campbell, rings true for referendums. So most of what is spoken and written this summer will be rubbish. The separatist movement will continue after losing the referendum, with the saner Alberta Transition Council perhaps leading the way. Regardless, the structural faults in Confederation will result its dissolution, it is just a matter of time. Patience is a virtue.
The stench of separatist bullshit hasn't been countered by PP's welcome but late speech. Interested to see if his whole Alberta caucus concurs or if they're going to follow the lead of the UCP caucus and remain silent and sycophantic?
What say thee Michelle, Michael et al?
You judge Poilievre to have been "late" in delivering his speech, but Carney has yet to give one on this topic.
...which makes him....