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.
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.
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.
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.
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".
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.
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.
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 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!).
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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".
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?
You make a good point.
If I were a journalist, I too would struggle with bias.
But 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.
He was right on this. Kind of a first for him. It doesn't change who he is.
Paul Wells was relatively complimentary WRT Poilievre’s latest speech, too.
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.
“Morph into monsters”. When I was speed reading I read “Ministers” . Like ministers of the Crown. Seems to fit to me at least.
When a grown up takes over, there will be calamity.
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 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!).
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
There is no "abandoned rail line" between Calgary and Banff. There is the CPR.
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.