On the weird election result. Danielle Smith's 'just asking questions' about a referendum. Wondering where Nenshi is. And The Line declares neutrality.
Hey M & J. Love the podcast, look forward to it every week. Don't normally comment, but feel compelled to this week given how wrong Jen's assessment of "normal" Albertans is, and I would have let it slide, but she went on and on about it...
Suggesting talk of separation isn't what "normal" Albertans are discussing reminds me of that woman, can't remember her name, who referred to a group of people she disagreed with as a basket of deplorables. It's not only offensive, it's not accurate. Perhaps venturing outside one's urban neighborhood to where the Albertans were actually born in Alberta might reorient the perspective.
I'm certainly no proponent of breaking up Canada, but I know many very normal Albertans, ranging from farmers to lawyers to tradespeople to big business types, and pretty much everyone in between, who are at least open to the discussion and debate. The obvious point I think Jen is missing, or perhaps choosing to ignore for the sake of good content, is that the reason many are talking about it isn't to actually see it happen - it's to simply send a fresh signal to other parts of the country about how deeply Albertans feel betrayed by much of the country. It's not a difficult dynamic to understand, and to use the discussion as a point of leverage isn't nearly as fringy as Jen tried to make it sound.
And then Jen went on to harshly criticize Premier Smith for "just asking questions" with regards to the new referendum rules, as if she forgot Smith is a politician, and that's exactly what normal politicians do when they're navigating delicate subjects. Just minutes later you both agreed that politicians lead by creating coalitions. Well, what do you think Smith is trying to do other than to manage the pressure within a political party that is, itself, a coalition.
I'm only commenting here because I believe providing commentary to the country on a serious issue that is demonstrably incorrect does a disservice to those grappling with the issue, both here in Alberta and across the country. A more accurate perspective would be appreciated.
Couldn't agree more. No one wants independence but burying your head in the sand to not see the problem isn't a solution. Talking about the possibility is not dangerous or inflammatory, but rational and productive.
To paraphrase the King government on conscription during WW2, not necessarily independence, but independence if necessary.
I think anybody who is willing to flirt with a separation referendum to, say, get an emissions cap lifted for example, is playing with fire. A fire that puts my home and my family directly at risk.
80% of the province has no interest in this kind of self defeating grievance mongering. So while this talk may be "normal" in your circles, it certainly isn't in mine. And until it's something I start to hear about spontaneously in real life - rather than in online comments sections or Twitter - I am not going to contribute to normalizing or humoring it.
I recognize many of our readers have been sold on this idea as a solution to Alberta's very legitimate problems. I have no ill will toward any of you, I just think you're wrong. And if you're coming here expecting me to pump my fists for this agenda, you're going to be disappointed. JG
Jen, thanks for the response, but, respectfully, I'm afraid you're wrong again. No one is expecting you to pump your fists for anything, especially not this agenda, but you mock and demean Albertans who are open to the discussion at our collective peril, just as the democrats in the US mocked and demeaned the deplorables at their peril (hence the reference). Just look where is got them, and, by extension, the rest of the world. Again, I'm no separatist, not even close, but I understand where the grassroot sentiment comes from - it's not a tactical pursuit of a lifted emissions cap, or a rescinding of C-69, or any other specific deliverable, it's in pursuit of respect and agency in a nation that has exploited and crapped on Alberta for generations. I don't roam comment sections (I'm new to this space and don't much care for it), and I don't live in X, I'm simply telling you this is more "real life" in Alberta than you seem to experience, and it deserves a more thoughtful engagement than you're giving it, especially if we hope to avoid the worst manifestations of it. That's all. Thanks again, and good luck out there!
Not everyone living in Alberta is really an Albertan, Wayne. Some will never really be Albertans no matter how long they reside there. (This comment is not about immigrants)
People say the same hurtful nonsense about immigrants. I came to Canada, aged twenty-five, forty-seven years ago. I served Canada in uniform for thirty-four years, including on two UN peacekeeping missions. But I guess I’ll never really be Canadian no matter how long I live here.
I was not referring to immigrants, and I apologize for it sounding like I was. I was referring specifically to Canadians born in other provinces. For example, I will never really be a British Columbian even though I have lived here for several years. Thank you for your service!
Thank you, Penny, for the clarification. THAT I understand - we now live in Saskatchewan (our daughters were born in Alberta) but my Nova Scotia born wife will never consider herself to be *from* the Prairies. Forty-one years and counting, now.
Kudos to Carney for getting the king to read the speech from the throne. Undoubtedly he would like to use this to convince Canadians that the country is no longer run by a bunch of French Quebeckers and an army of bilingually bonused Ottawa Civil servants the majority of whom were hired during the Trudeau era. I’ll believe it when his Cabinet directory stops reading like a page from the Chicoutimi phone directory.
And in the interest of perceived legal impartiality it would be nice if he dropped the recent Trudeau requirement that all future Canada Supreme Court justices (title?) be bilingual and able to operate without Interpreters. To paraphrase a former Ontario premier, a 20 percent French tail should not wag an 80 percent English speaking dog.
Lost in the discussion is that we are talking about a “Throne Speech” and because King Charles is a hop, skip and jump from Westminster he will always read the speech from the throne. His mother did the same task here on occasion.
The most delicious part of Carney asking/inviting King Charles to deliver the Throne Speech is the 180 degree turn away from the Trudeau indifference to the Monarchy. Trudeau loved heading off to London for the photo ops and pomp and ceremony, in fact he stopped to get a farewell handshake from the King just before he left office. Here at home, Trudeau was a significant player in the decolonization project that trashes our history and culture and sets up the Monarchy as a radioactive relic to be shunned.
Maybe we are finally turning the corner from 10 years of that BS, I sure hope so.
Excellent point. As a new sheriff in town it’s great to see Carney reinstate some of Canada’s traditions and put the Quebec “outlaws” in their place - and hopefully it’ll be reflected in his Cabinet appointments. And I agree with you that Justin was definitely involved in “decolonizing” - IIRC Senator Anne Cools in an earlier era referred to it as social reengineering, AKA ethnic cleansing of the Anglo Judaeo-Christian culture. Hopefully we will also get respect for law as opposed to the bureaucratically enforced tyrannies of the previous administration.
I don’t believe the WEF is a shadowy cabal but I do believe a lot of elite have bought into their view of the world and are willing to implement the policies they put forward. Just as maybe Danielle Smith may indeed get policy ideas from the Manning organization and I hate the WEF policies of net zero, control, central planning, digital currency and censorship. These are actually wEF policy discussions and we see the liberals trying to bring them forward so when Pierre Poliviere says WEF it is shorthand to me and many others for those terrible policies. Call it conspiracy all you like, that doesn’t make it so
100% agree Marcie. And well put. The “conspiracy theorist” pejorative gets thrown around way too much - including on “The Line” on this issue and it is used to deflect from valid and credible policy criticisms of what is indisputably a very well funded, influential and connected organization.
Not that she needs it from anyone, much less me, but I am going to defend Jen’s take here. First, I yield to nobody in my utter contempt for the destructive ESG mindset that is prevalent at the WEF – Javier Milei’s punch to their collective mouths has to be the greatest thing to ever happen in Davos.
But there is simply no need for PP to ever talk about Davos or the WEF. The persons to blame for any Davos-friendly policies being implemented in Canada over the recent past are Junior and the clowns in his cabinet/caucus. If anything, “blaming WEF/Davos” serves to almost absolve Junior from responsibility by making it seem like he is either an innocent bystander or a puppet – and that IS conspiratorial. Junior is the person that fucked this Country over. Sure, he might have got some of his ideas from Davos but so what? Milei got some of his ideas from Hayek. The person actually implementing the policies deserve the credit/blame, not the original sources of ideas.
Furthermore, a lot of normies don’t have any clue about WEF/Davos references and the otherwise great point to be made here is lost on them. It is very easy to understand: “the Liberal government is responsible for policies that have crippled the resource industry and by extension the economy which has flat-lined for ten years under their leadership”. That is clear and ties all the blame to the Liberals where it belongs. Why invoke the spectre of some shadowy overseas cabal with an acronym that evokes either wrestling or wildlife? I don’t blame normies hearing references to WEF/Davos for thinking it’s conspiratorial talk.
And I totally agree - credit where credit is due. Always have to give big ups to any organization with "a viewpoint" who gives a forum to someone with a competing viewpoint.
They are also all for taking away guns. Distrusting the WEF is not something that would make me discount someone as being a conspiratorial nutcase. I think a lot of people have genuine concerns about the political buy-in of all that WEF stands for. I think Jen's take on this is really odd tbh.
World economic forum and their board, which Chrystia Freeland is a member of. They have programs like Young Global Leaders whom Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh were mentored by. Read their website to see their policies and ideas. They put forward the digital traveller program that our government participated in. I think you aren’t asking that question in good faith but just in case you are here’s some information…..
It does not appear based on their website that they advocate any particular policies. To the extent they advocate anything, it seems to be getting elites together to talk about things. I am looking in particular at the purpose page here: https://www.weforum.org/about/world-economic-forum/
When I look at the list of board members, which by the way does not list Freeland, it seems they come from a variety of backgrounds, and at very least implausible to say that they all believe the same things.
So I still don’t really understand who the “they” you’re referring to is, of what it is that they believe.
Michael, just pointing out there is no reference to “They” as you are intending in any of Marcie’s comments. All references to “They” are to the WEF as a policy issuing organization. Here are some of the things they advocate for:
Klaus Schwab bragging about how the WEF has “infiltrated” governments in the West. Canada gets specifically mentioned.
Then here is their stated mission:
“The World Economic Forum (WEF) is an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world. As stated in its mission, it “engages business, political, academic and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas.”
If that’s not a terrifyingly powerful and influential group of individuals- I don’t know what is.
Listen, many people might argue the WEF has good ideas and are well intended. That’s a fair position to take. I would agree on the latter point if disagree with the former. But we all know what the road to hell is paved with...
I looked through your links, and it seems like the first one is pretty anodyne. It’s like buzzword bingo of things aren’t working, the world is unfair and needs reform. Swap out the buzzwords without changing the substance and you could drop it into Pierre Pollievre’s stump speech and no one would even notice.
The second one is an audit report, basically. They had some plans for how the forum should operate, and I guess they achieved them? Doesn’t seem like they’re suggesting anyone else should do anything there.
Then the Georgetown one is basically the same as the purpose I linked above. They get as many big shots as they can together to talk. The list on the board - sure they’re all big deals. But they obviously don’t all agree on much. If anything it confirms what I’m saying. It’s a bunch of people getting together to talk. That’s not nothing, but it’s also not a lot.
I have corrected the ESG link above to include the root policy proposal. Thanks for correcting that- was the wrong link.
Flat out- I’d prefer to believe your perspective, but hears the thing. You’re essentially saying the WEF is a high minded organization headed by a bunch of extremely wealthy and influential individuals, who are all just really disjointed and ineffective. That’s speculation, that considering the quality of the cast, fails on the balance of probabilities to me.
So we’re left with 2 things really at the base of it to consider. 1. That this is an organization that puts out strategy and policy documents they think are good for the world AND 2. they are a private supranational(like) organization actively applying leverage and influence to governments and multi-national companies around the world in support of point 1.
If you are ok with 1 but not 2 you aren’t a fan of the WEF or any other similar organization. If you are ok with 2 but not 1 you are not a fan of WEF.
I want to challenge Matt’s skepticism on the theory that the issues of the Liberal Party cannot be explained by “something went wrong with Justin Trudeau.” Of course it can’t be explained completely that simply, but I do believe it can be explained in the main. Justin Trudeau, by all available evidence, was a complete incompetent as a leader. He lacked self awareness, and he lacked completely from his background any sort of notable accomplishment. To lead is a skill, it requires humility, patience and pragmatism. Trudeau exhibited none of these. Zero.
Further argument. Incompetent leaders centralize power to themselves, because primarily they are incapable of competently directing and empowering others. I would know - I have been in that seat. They get defensive or evasive in the face of questions. They surround themselves only with those who do not challenge them. We saw him part ways with every competent minister he had, and then promote those of the least competency and qualification. Bill Morneau - out. Crystia Freeland - in. Melanie Joly, Marco Mendincino, Sean Fraser, Stephen Guilbaeult - In. What we had in Justin Trudeau was a shallow ideologue, of (at best) average intelligence who completely lacked experience, humility and self awareness. The disaster that ensured is predictable and IS due to the man. The fact that the power structures were so completely captured within the party by Trudeau and the PMO, well that can be laid at the feet of the party’s “gormless weasels.” But the governance - this can and should be laid at the feet of Justin Trudeau. He was the problem (mainly), the Liberal party was just the vehicle.
I want to comment on Jen’s take on the Alberta Separation analysis as I think it truly misses the mark.
1. I don’t believe the 20-25% of support is “soft” I believe 20% is hard at this moment. Travel to rural Alberta, even just a surrounding municipality to Edmonton and Calgary and talk to people. It’s going to be way higher than you think.
2. The “normies” and I count myself in this number, generally don’t support separation or 51… yet. But, my group chats are all talking about it, more than one. It’s timid, but it’s being thrown around. Now, if you were to poll those group chats now? Maybe 1 of 7 says they supports some sort of separation, and that would be soft. BUT, if we see a continuation of, or a ramping up of the Trudeau eras policies and treatment of Alberta, that number goes to 5 or 6, and it goes quick. Point being the separation support being bandied about now are essentially the hard rural right (and their urban comrades) it does not include the normies. But things can change, for better and worse from here.
3. The idea that this will not be an emotional decision is a complete miss. Alberta elected an NDP government out of nowhere on an emotional decision. I was part of it! The PC’s were, tired, corrupt and they pissed us off (look in the mirror?) so we elected the goddamn socialist party to a majority. (I’m being facetious - they weren’t truly socialists, but the point remains). Brexit no one said could happen - emotion. Trump #1 no one said would happen. - emotion. Emotion will drive this movement or kill it. You literally talked in the previous segment of how we’re irrational monkeys, and you’re right! Now you’re both saying support will drop when people get rational. Ha.
4. You are missing another far more obvious reason premier Smith has dropped the referendum requirements. Leverage. Premier Smith and Albertans are keenly aware of how Quebec has been able to soak the rest of the country. She is emulating that. You can find this distasteful, but before you turn any guns over here, let’s point them back that way first. Also, she is utilizing a tactic, which I have used and seen used in business, quite often, which is to essentially cock the gun, in one hand and put out your other hand in cooperation. In other words, here is the threat, but let’s not go there, let’s work on a reasonable solution together instead. We have tried the “reasonable” approach only for years. It hasn’t worked. Albertans (and Premier Smith is one) have had enough. The threat is not option A, it’s not even option B. But it is real and it is not a bluff if things continue on a Trudeau trajectory.
5. Eastern Canadians and the Liberal government would do well not to mock, or “call Alberta’s bluff” here. Because if they do, let me tell you, the emotional part kicks in and this thing could catch fire in a hurry. Listen to what we’re saying, Albertans are going to be reasonable, but they will not stand or further economic suppression or hypocritical moral judgement from the ROC any longer.
6. Lastly where is Nenshi? Not wanting to be seen to be taking the side of the ROC over Alberta, before he sees how the ROC is going to react. Not wanting to piss off the “normies” that see what Premier Smith is doing - and don’t mind it. Do with that what you will.
In crisis is opportunity, and this might be generational opportunity for National prosperity and unity to take hold. Prime Minister Carney is currently impressing and on the exact right track (imo). I’m also cheering and supporting his success. But, the proof will be in actions. I’ll second Premier Smith, comments, there has been a positive first step.
While protesting your neutrality, you didn't sound very neutral when you were speaking of Danielle Smith in your written prologue, insistent Nenshi was missing in action to do. . . what? . . . Add his usual overstatement to the occasion? Pierre deserves your neutrality but Danielle doesn't? Just sayin'.
So Jen, you believe that Carney is speaking to us as if speaking to an adult. Really? Isn't he the one who has been really evasive about questions about his role in Brookfield moving, unwilling to say where he lives or pays taxes, claimed to have resigned from every Board but managed to forget some, asked a CBC reporter to 'look inside yourself' has told reporters that they don't really understand how the world works, and has claimed that it is a "FACT" that Pierre is going to end abortion. Apparently you and I have vastly different ideas of speaking adult to adult. When he lies about little stuff that is easily disproved then he will be lying about the big stuff.
As to Alberta separatism, the numbers I've seen are 30 - 35% of Albertans and 28 - 32 % Of Sask. residents would consider separation. Those numbe3rs were before Carney won. Also, think back (likely before your time young lady) but the idea of joining the US was pushed in Saskatchewan with a party formed by Dennis Hamm and Dick Collver - the Unionist Party.
Also I'm really tired of hearing that Poilievre "blew a 25% lead". We all knew that the 25% lead was when the LPC support was in the toilet. If you look at the numbers the CPC did a good job of holding support during the campaign. Also consider that Trudeau tole Donald Trump that Canada would cease to exist if tariffs were imposed and then Carney kept repeating the 'orange man bad' schtick (the usual LPC sew seeds of fear) which was trumpeted by the MSM (does anyone still believe that the CBC is impartial???). My take is that if the election had run just another week there would have been s different result - but maybe I'm doing a woulda coulda.
I get what Jen means, though. A lot of women seem to have loved the lounge-lizardy vibe that JT gave off, but for those of us who didn't, it was really condescending. I couldn't stand listening to Trudeau speak, especially about feminism because I always felt that he thought women would be nowhere without his help. I will probably be irked by a lot of Carney's policies, but I'll be able to listen to him talk about them. Pierre is cocky, but I don't find him condescending and I always like listening to him.
With regards to Smith and separation referenda, if it works for Quebec, and it sure as hell has, why wouldn’t Alberta try the same route? The Federal government has been hostile to it for electoral purposes - Trudeau and his cabinet deliberately went out of their way to dismiss Alberta concerns. Maybe this will make the Feds govern for everyone, something they have failed to do for a decade.
It works for Quebec because they have organized over years and decades. The have established provincial and federal parties to do the work. They kept these parties running through thick and thin. Alberta's separatists have done none of this (Maverick? Buffalo?) And until they do, nothing will happen on this file.
As a non-Albertan, I may be missing something, but I found the argument around separatism naive.
Jen highlighted how Alberta has been harmed by the rest of the country, giving much and getting less. But I guess her solution is for Alberta to bury its head in the sand? As far as I could follow, the answer seem to be that Alberta should just hope Carney and the provinces just *clap* do better *clap*?
It seems to me that separatism is a useful national political tool. Alberta does not have a huge number of cards to play, but a separatist movement may be one. The goal may not be actual separatism but leverage.
Chris, I (an Albertan) started a long screed to explain our feelings but I then cancelled it as it was simply detailing ...... blah, blah, blah ..... what Jen started to talk about but then dismissed.
So, okay, as to your comment and as to Jen. I am an Albertan who has a great deal of time for listening to the separatists. I am not one of them but I am willing to hear what they say and to see what they might reasonably (or otherwise) offer as a way forward. If a referendum were to be called and the question was "Leave, yes or no?" then I would say "No." but if the campaign was to be put in the sense of "Here is a reasonable program of how it would work; what do you think?" then I - and I think many others - would give respectful thought to what was presented. How would I vote in such a circumstance? My answer today is different than tomorrow than the next day than the next .....
In other words, a lot will depend on a lot. I really think Jen has underestimated how many people would view a respectful and thoughtful campaign because she has her own very firm view that colors her response.
As for "... how Alberta has been harmed by the rest of the country ... " as you put it, many of we in Alberta have views (as noted above, I started to list A and B and C and so forth but I stopped). Jen has lived here for about 15 years, I seem to recall that she said and she, like me, is an urban person; I suspect that she has not spent a lot of time - some but not a lot - in rural Alberta, which composes perhaps a third of our population so her knowledge, I expect is from her conversations among similar folk in Calgary and Edmonton.
I - very respectfully, very respectfully - believe that Jen does not have a full understanding of how many folks here see things.
And, I suggest that the same could be said of Saskatchewan. Or the BC interior.
Prince2King Charles III is not QEII. My bet, she would have dodged this. The unknown consequences may be telling.
Mr. Carney has failed to disappoint after one week? The ball is in his court, but he is playing pickle ball... (directionless).
Ms. Smith is more politically astute than you believe. Mr. Nenshi is quiet because... he is LPC, and will be painted with that brush. Political annihilation if Mr. Carney trips. He will. And then we will have a snap election.
As of today, any referendum on sovereignty will fail. But as Millennials become the dominant voting force, nationally by 2030, but earlier in AB, the game changes.
The G&M's analysis of an APP was? It made sense. Boomers hate it but in three years time, who cares? Referendum.
Replace the RCMP with an Alberta Police Force? How many Albertans work for the OPP or SQ? Referendum.
Hire Albertans to collect our taxes? Referendum. Sorry WPG and NB.
Alberta sets immigration? Stop the influx of economic refugees from eastern Canada? Referendum.
Your declaration of neutrality has been RoadRunner'd by Damien Kurek, Alta MP, giving up his seat for PP. He wins that and all the internecine stuff evaporates.
First, he can’t be seated for months. That leaves lots of time for things to change. It took a while for O’Toole to be tossed.
Second, the interesting thing about this is that the biggest complaints are coming from the provinces. They could be providing cover for elements inside the federal party, or they could just be elements of a broader coalition that is being shut out by the federal leadership.
I don't think the NDP is going to disappear Federally. Today's Star had an article quoting Charlie Angus as saying the NDP 'ran an absolutely disastrous campaign' and “at some point, we stopped being the New Democratic Party of Canada and we became Team Jagmeet.”
Angus also didn't rule out another run at the leadership either. Which is interesting considering he didn't run in this past election. Leaves me wondering if part of his reason for not running was dissatisfaction with Singh's leadership? I think an NDP led by Charlie would be a much different animal than the one led by Singh & if Angus had been leader I suspect the NDP results of this election would have been much less disastrous.
Having read and watched some of Charlie’s absolutely rabid communication over the past six months, I think a quiet place would benefit him (and the rest of us).
He certainly does appear to have gone 'off the rails' over the last year, compared to 10 years ago. I think some of it could be explained by the threats & harassment directed at him & his family over the last couple of years. And if he's been frustrated by the direction the NDP has been going over that same time, bottled up anger can erupt in some strange ways.
Don't think it's in his personality to spend much time in a quiet place so I'm sure we'll be hearing from him again. :-)
As an outside observer, I thought that the NDP dropped the ball when the membership chose Singh over Angus as leader. Angus had the Parliamentary experience and the brains to lead.
That was then. His recent public statements about various issues gives me cause to reconsider. Angus has the street credentials to reconnect the NDP with working class people but his judgment on some matters makes me wonder?
Great commentary on the benefits of constitutional monarchy. Anthropomorphizing the State is the entire point/benefit. Too many people (I admit to once being one of them as a smarmy kid) get hung up on "inbred unelected gits should not be Head of State by birthright". That's true. Particularly in isolation it is an appealing argument.
But like communism it completely ignores human nature. The communists don't understand incentives/self-interest and the republicans seemingly don't understand tribalism. Having someone who plays on one of two or more opposing "teams" as the head of state (hello USA) is a recipe for massive division in the country (hello again USA). As the great Thomas Sowell says, there are no solutions, there are only tradeoffs. The benefits of having a non-partisan head of state far outweigh the virtually non-existent costs of potentially having an inbred unelected git symbolizing the state.
And the reason God Save the King is a great national anthem (perhaps second only to La Marseillaise) is embodied in the line, "Long to reign over us". Here again, the republicans miss the point - these are not words being sung by supplicants. This is telling the world that it is only the King/Queen of THEIR Country (someone who is only in that position because THEY ALLOW him/her to be the living symbol of their Country), who will ever "reign over them". Essentially, "we put him/her there and don't you fucking dare think we will ever bow down to ANYBODY else". God Save the King, indeed.
And I co-sign Jen's words re PP's pandering re WEF et al. It is revolting.
Even while Trudeau was still Prime Minister there was a Carleton Liberal whom I follow on Twitter who was hyping up the prospect of Poilievre losing his riding. Boy, I did not take that Liberal seriously!
I wasn't completely surprised by the loss. Was in the Ottawa area the weekend of the derecho 3 years ago & had a good look at some of that destruction. I recall reading (maybe from Twitter?) that people in Poilievre's riding were wondering where he was afterward the storm & were unhappy that he apparently didn't make an appearance. Wonder now if the seeds for the defeat were initially sown then?
He still got 45% of the vote which was similar to 2019.
The "Poilievre hated in Carleton" narrative seems like BS. He was in a more competitive riding than he was willing to acknowledge and the NDP collapse (to about 1%) put the Liberal over the top.
I don't think any leader will make this mistake again. Battle River with 80% CPC vote share it will be.
Well, Jen, I absolutely disagree with you about your comments on Danielle Smith's move to lower the threshold for calling a referendum and related items. [Quelle surprise, right?]
First, I do think that citizens have a right to express themselves and to demand "better" from their government(s). That means that where any particular group feels that it is disadvantaged or abused in some manner by that/those government(s) those citizens should have the right to organize and try to put to other citizens a question as to whether this or that action or inaction is appropriate. So, democracy.
The lowering of the threshold is simply recognition that the previous rule calling for a petition of 15% of the voters, all of which had to be collected within 90 days whereas they now must collect signatures of 10% of voters within 90 days. In my mind, the previous threshold and time requirement, because it was so great (threshold) and short (timeframe), was tantamount to denying any real possibility of a citizen initiated referendum being successful in resulting in a referendum call. Now, it is marginally, just marginally, easier to collect the signatures in the required time.
Second, I am someone who is often fussed by the restrictions on donations and such on election advertising and such. You know, free speech and such. The proposed new rules still impose maximum contribution limits but they do not quite so greatly prevent free speech. For all of those folks who argue about elections, referenda being "bought" I refer you to the contribution limits. For those who argue that groups will find ways around the contribution limits I refer you to the last Calgary civic election where it is argued (reasonably in my view) union groups bought the election of many candidates. Plus ca change and all that.
Third, I do understand that these changes might well make it easier to call a separation referendum but I respond with a hearty, "So what?" My point is that if separation is such a non-starter as many have said, then allow the proponents to get that referendum called and then bury the idea so it is d-e-a-d dead. If, however, as has been mooted in recent polling, there are already thirty per cent in favor of separation in some form then that issue had better be confronted head on. You know, democracy: governments need know out what is bothering people and provide proper responses.
Fourth, well, Hell!, I am pretty much a libertarian on many issues insofar as I think that I - or you - have the right to say what is on my mind and if enough other folks think similarly then our government(s) should listen and respond in some manner to take into account the will - whatever is that will - of the electorate. If, in fact, my opinions - or yours - are shown to be oddball, then knowing that should put paid to our notions.
Hey M & J. Love the podcast, look forward to it every week. Don't normally comment, but feel compelled to this week given how wrong Jen's assessment of "normal" Albertans is, and I would have let it slide, but she went on and on about it...
Suggesting talk of separation isn't what "normal" Albertans are discussing reminds me of that woman, can't remember her name, who referred to a group of people she disagreed with as a basket of deplorables. It's not only offensive, it's not accurate. Perhaps venturing outside one's urban neighborhood to where the Albertans were actually born in Alberta might reorient the perspective.
I'm certainly no proponent of breaking up Canada, but I know many very normal Albertans, ranging from farmers to lawyers to tradespeople to big business types, and pretty much everyone in between, who are at least open to the discussion and debate. The obvious point I think Jen is missing, or perhaps choosing to ignore for the sake of good content, is that the reason many are talking about it isn't to actually see it happen - it's to simply send a fresh signal to other parts of the country about how deeply Albertans feel betrayed by much of the country. It's not a difficult dynamic to understand, and to use the discussion as a point of leverage isn't nearly as fringy as Jen tried to make it sound.
And then Jen went on to harshly criticize Premier Smith for "just asking questions" with regards to the new referendum rules, as if she forgot Smith is a politician, and that's exactly what normal politicians do when they're navigating delicate subjects. Just minutes later you both agreed that politicians lead by creating coalitions. Well, what do you think Smith is trying to do other than to manage the pressure within a political party that is, itself, a coalition.
I'm only commenting here because I believe providing commentary to the country on a serious issue that is demonstrably incorrect does a disservice to those grappling with the issue, both here in Alberta and across the country. A more accurate perspective would be appreciated.
Couldn't agree more. No one wants independence but burying your head in the sand to not see the problem isn't a solution. Talking about the possibility is not dangerous or inflammatory, but rational and productive.
To paraphrase the King government on conscription during WW2, not necessarily independence, but independence if necessary.
I think anybody who is willing to flirt with a separation referendum to, say, get an emissions cap lifted for example, is playing with fire. A fire that puts my home and my family directly at risk.
80% of the province has no interest in this kind of self defeating grievance mongering. So while this talk may be "normal" in your circles, it certainly isn't in mine. And until it's something I start to hear about spontaneously in real life - rather than in online comments sections or Twitter - I am not going to contribute to normalizing or humoring it.
I recognize many of our readers have been sold on this idea as a solution to Alberta's very legitimate problems. I have no ill will toward any of you, I just think you're wrong. And if you're coming here expecting me to pump my fists for this agenda, you're going to be disappointed. JG
Jen, thanks for the response, but, respectfully, I'm afraid you're wrong again. No one is expecting you to pump your fists for anything, especially not this agenda, but you mock and demean Albertans who are open to the discussion at our collective peril, just as the democrats in the US mocked and demeaned the deplorables at their peril (hence the reference). Just look where is got them, and, by extension, the rest of the world. Again, I'm no separatist, not even close, but I understand where the grassroot sentiment comes from - it's not a tactical pursuit of a lifted emissions cap, or a rescinding of C-69, or any other specific deliverable, it's in pursuit of respect and agency in a nation that has exploited and crapped on Alberta for generations. I don't roam comment sections (I'm new to this space and don't much care for it), and I don't live in X, I'm simply telling you this is more "real life" in Alberta than you seem to experience, and it deserves a more thoughtful engagement than you're giving it, especially if we hope to avoid the worst manifestations of it. That's all. Thanks again, and good luck out there!
Not everyone living in Alberta is really an Albertan, Wayne. Some will never really be Albertans no matter how long they reside there. (This comment is not about immigrants)
People say the same hurtful nonsense about immigrants. I came to Canada, aged twenty-five, forty-seven years ago. I served Canada in uniform for thirty-four years, including on two UN peacekeeping missions. But I guess I’ll never really be Canadian no matter how long I live here.
Who is ‘Carney’? 😁
Yes , you are Canadian! Full stop ! Even if you voted for Carney . LOL 😆
I was not referring to immigrants, and I apologize for it sounding like I was. I was referring specifically to Canadians born in other provinces. For example, I will never really be a British Columbian even though I have lived here for several years. Thank you for your service!
Thank you, Penny, for the clarification. THAT I understand - we now live in Saskatchewan (our daughters were born in Alberta) but my Nova Scotia born wife will never consider herself to be *from* the Prairies. Forty-one years and counting, now.
You definitely get it! Thank you for understanding.
“No true Scotsman…!”
Kudos to Carney for getting the king to read the speech from the throne. Undoubtedly he would like to use this to convince Canadians that the country is no longer run by a bunch of French Quebeckers and an army of bilingually bonused Ottawa Civil servants the majority of whom were hired during the Trudeau era. I’ll believe it when his Cabinet directory stops reading like a page from the Chicoutimi phone directory.
And in the interest of perceived legal impartiality it would be nice if he dropped the recent Trudeau requirement that all future Canada Supreme Court justices (title?) be bilingual and able to operate without Interpreters. To paraphrase a former Ontario premier, a 20 percent French tail should not wag an 80 percent English speaking dog.
Lost in the discussion is that we are talking about a “Throne Speech” and because King Charles is a hop, skip and jump from Westminster he will always read the speech from the throne. His mother did the same task here on occasion.
The most delicious part of Carney asking/inviting King Charles to deliver the Throne Speech is the 180 degree turn away from the Trudeau indifference to the Monarchy. Trudeau loved heading off to London for the photo ops and pomp and ceremony, in fact he stopped to get a farewell handshake from the King just before he left office. Here at home, Trudeau was a significant player in the decolonization project that trashes our history and culture and sets up the Monarchy as a radioactive relic to be shunned.
Maybe we are finally turning the corner from 10 years of that BS, I sure hope so.
Excellent point. As a new sheriff in town it’s great to see Carney reinstate some of Canada’s traditions and put the Quebec “outlaws” in their place - and hopefully it’ll be reflected in his Cabinet appointments. And I agree with you that Justin was definitely involved in “decolonizing” - IIRC Senator Anne Cools in an earlier era referred to it as social reengineering, AKA ethnic cleansing of the Anglo Judaeo-Christian culture. Hopefully we will also get respect for law as opposed to the bureaucratically enforced tyrannies of the previous administration.
I don’t believe the WEF is a shadowy cabal but I do believe a lot of elite have bought into their view of the world and are willing to implement the policies they put forward. Just as maybe Danielle Smith may indeed get policy ideas from the Manning organization and I hate the WEF policies of net zero, control, central planning, digital currency and censorship. These are actually wEF policy discussions and we see the liberals trying to bring them forward so when Pierre Poliviere says WEF it is shorthand to me and many others for those terrible policies. Call it conspiracy all you like, that doesn’t make it so
100% agree Marcie. And well put. The “conspiracy theorist” pejorative gets thrown around way too much - including on “The Line” on this issue and it is used to deflect from valid and credible policy criticisms of what is indisputably a very well funded, influential and connected organization.
It's almost used as a dog-whistle on the Line to the pro-WEF gang 🤣
Not that she needs it from anyone, much less me, but I am going to defend Jen’s take here. First, I yield to nobody in my utter contempt for the destructive ESG mindset that is prevalent at the WEF – Javier Milei’s punch to their collective mouths has to be the greatest thing to ever happen in Davos.
But there is simply no need for PP to ever talk about Davos or the WEF. The persons to blame for any Davos-friendly policies being implemented in Canada over the recent past are Junior and the clowns in his cabinet/caucus. If anything, “blaming WEF/Davos” serves to almost absolve Junior from responsibility by making it seem like he is either an innocent bystander or a puppet – and that IS conspiratorial. Junior is the person that fucked this Country over. Sure, he might have got some of his ideas from Davos but so what? Milei got some of his ideas from Hayek. The person actually implementing the policies deserve the credit/blame, not the original sources of ideas.
Furthermore, a lot of normies don’t have any clue about WEF/Davos references and the otherwise great point to be made here is lost on them. It is very easy to understand: “the Liberal government is responsible for policies that have crippled the resource industry and by extension the economy which has flat-lined for ten years under their leadership”. That is clear and ties all the blame to the Liberals where it belongs. Why invoke the spectre of some shadowy overseas cabal with an acronym that evokes either wrestling or wildlife? I don’t blame normies hearing references to WEF/Davos for thinking it’s conspiratorial talk.
Great comment Gordo.
I love this comment too. “Javier Milei’s punch to their collective mouths has to be the greatest thing to ever happen in Davos.”
I throughly enjoyed it.
One thing I will say - I will give the WEF credit for inviting him to speak, same with Trump this year.
Thank you.
And I totally agree - credit where credit is due. Always have to give big ups to any organization with "a viewpoint" who gives a forum to someone with a competing viewpoint.
Excellent summary, thank you !
They are also all for taking away guns. Distrusting the WEF is not something that would make me discount someone as being a conspiratorial nutcase. I think a lot of people have genuine concerns about the political buy-in of all that WEF stands for. I think Jen's take on this is really odd tbh.
Who specifically is they, and what specifically is their world view?
World economic forum and their board, which Chrystia Freeland is a member of. They have programs like Young Global Leaders whom Justin Trudeau and Jagmeet Singh were mentored by. Read their website to see their policies and ideas. They put forward the digital traveller program that our government participated in. I think you aren’t asking that question in good faith but just in case you are here’s some information…..
It does not appear based on their website that they advocate any particular policies. To the extent they advocate anything, it seems to be getting elites together to talk about things. I am looking in particular at the purpose page here: https://www.weforum.org/about/world-economic-forum/
When I look at the list of board members, which by the way does not list Freeland, it seems they come from a variety of backgrounds, and at very least implausible to say that they all believe the same things.
So I still don’t really understand who the “they” you’re referring to is, of what it is that they believe.
Michael, just pointing out there is no reference to “They” as you are intending in any of Marcie’s comments. All references to “They” are to the WEF as a policy issuing organization. Here are some of the things they advocate for:
https://www.weforum.org/stories/2020/06/now-is-the-time-for-a-great-reset/
https://www.weforum.org/stakeholdercapitalism/our-metrics/#:~:text=Focused%20on%20four%20themes%2C%20People,investors%20and%20other%20interested%20parties.
Then there is this:
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=b4cDNyvrP40
Klaus Schwab bragging about how the WEF has “infiltrated” governments in the West. Canada gets specifically mentioned.
Then here is their stated mission:
“The World Economic Forum (WEF) is an independent international organization committed to improving the state of the world. As stated in its mission, it “engages business, political, academic and other leaders of society to shape global, regional and industry agendas.”
https://president.georgetown.edu/projects/archive/wef/
Here is their board of Trustees
https://www.weforum.org/about/leadership-and-governance/
If that’s not a terrifyingly powerful and influential group of individuals- I don’t know what is.
Listen, many people might argue the WEF has good ideas and are well intended. That’s a fair position to take. I would agree on the latter point if disagree with the former. But we all know what the road to hell is paved with...
Thanks for the thoughtful response, Chris.
I looked through your links, and it seems like the first one is pretty anodyne. It’s like buzzword bingo of things aren’t working, the world is unfair and needs reform. Swap out the buzzwords without changing the substance and you could drop it into Pierre Pollievre’s stump speech and no one would even notice.
The second one is an audit report, basically. They had some plans for how the forum should operate, and I guess they achieved them? Doesn’t seem like they’re suggesting anyone else should do anything there.
Then the Georgetown one is basically the same as the purpose I linked above. They get as many big shots as they can together to talk. The list on the board - sure they’re all big deals. But they obviously don’t all agree on much. If anything it confirms what I’m saying. It’s a bunch of people getting together to talk. That’s not nothing, but it’s also not a lot.
I have corrected the ESG link above to include the root policy proposal. Thanks for correcting that- was the wrong link.
Flat out- I’d prefer to believe your perspective, but hears the thing. You’re essentially saying the WEF is a high minded organization headed by a bunch of extremely wealthy and influential individuals, who are all just really disjointed and ineffective. That’s speculation, that considering the quality of the cast, fails on the balance of probabilities to me.
So we’re left with 2 things really at the base of it to consider. 1. That this is an organization that puts out strategy and policy documents they think are good for the world AND 2. they are a private supranational(like) organization actively applying leverage and influence to governments and multi-national companies around the world in support of point 1.
If you are ok with 1 but not 2 you aren’t a fan of the WEF or any other similar organization. If you are ok with 2 but not 1 you are not a fan of WEF.
I am not ok with 2.
Conspiracy theorist!!!! 🤪
I want to challenge Matt’s skepticism on the theory that the issues of the Liberal Party cannot be explained by “something went wrong with Justin Trudeau.” Of course it can’t be explained completely that simply, but I do believe it can be explained in the main. Justin Trudeau, by all available evidence, was a complete incompetent as a leader. He lacked self awareness, and he lacked completely from his background any sort of notable accomplishment. To lead is a skill, it requires humility, patience and pragmatism. Trudeau exhibited none of these. Zero.
Further argument. Incompetent leaders centralize power to themselves, because primarily they are incapable of competently directing and empowering others. I would know - I have been in that seat. They get defensive or evasive in the face of questions. They surround themselves only with those who do not challenge them. We saw him part ways with every competent minister he had, and then promote those of the least competency and qualification. Bill Morneau - out. Crystia Freeland - in. Melanie Joly, Marco Mendincino, Sean Fraser, Stephen Guilbaeult - In. What we had in Justin Trudeau was a shallow ideologue, of (at best) average intelligence who completely lacked experience, humility and self awareness. The disaster that ensured is predictable and IS due to the man. The fact that the power structures were so completely captured within the party by Trudeau and the PMO, well that can be laid at the feet of the party’s “gormless weasels.” But the governance - this can and should be laid at the feet of Justin Trudeau. He was the problem (mainly), the Liberal party was just the vehicle.
If that’s the case, what went wrong with the Liberal party is that they let it happen and couldn’t respond.
I want to comment on Jen’s take on the Alberta Separation analysis as I think it truly misses the mark.
1. I don’t believe the 20-25% of support is “soft” I believe 20% is hard at this moment. Travel to rural Alberta, even just a surrounding municipality to Edmonton and Calgary and talk to people. It’s going to be way higher than you think.
2. The “normies” and I count myself in this number, generally don’t support separation or 51… yet. But, my group chats are all talking about it, more than one. It’s timid, but it’s being thrown around. Now, if you were to poll those group chats now? Maybe 1 of 7 says they supports some sort of separation, and that would be soft. BUT, if we see a continuation of, or a ramping up of the Trudeau eras policies and treatment of Alberta, that number goes to 5 or 6, and it goes quick. Point being the separation support being bandied about now are essentially the hard rural right (and their urban comrades) it does not include the normies. But things can change, for better and worse from here.
3. The idea that this will not be an emotional decision is a complete miss. Alberta elected an NDP government out of nowhere on an emotional decision. I was part of it! The PC’s were, tired, corrupt and they pissed us off (look in the mirror?) so we elected the goddamn socialist party to a majority. (I’m being facetious - they weren’t truly socialists, but the point remains). Brexit no one said could happen - emotion. Trump #1 no one said would happen. - emotion. Emotion will drive this movement or kill it. You literally talked in the previous segment of how we’re irrational monkeys, and you’re right! Now you’re both saying support will drop when people get rational. Ha.
4. You are missing another far more obvious reason premier Smith has dropped the referendum requirements. Leverage. Premier Smith and Albertans are keenly aware of how Quebec has been able to soak the rest of the country. She is emulating that. You can find this distasteful, but before you turn any guns over here, let’s point them back that way first. Also, she is utilizing a tactic, which I have used and seen used in business, quite often, which is to essentially cock the gun, in one hand and put out your other hand in cooperation. In other words, here is the threat, but let’s not go there, let’s work on a reasonable solution together instead. We have tried the “reasonable” approach only for years. It hasn’t worked. Albertans (and Premier Smith is one) have had enough. The threat is not option A, it’s not even option B. But it is real and it is not a bluff if things continue on a Trudeau trajectory.
5. Eastern Canadians and the Liberal government would do well not to mock, or “call Alberta’s bluff” here. Because if they do, let me tell you, the emotional part kicks in and this thing could catch fire in a hurry. Listen to what we’re saying, Albertans are going to be reasonable, but they will not stand or further economic suppression or hypocritical moral judgement from the ROC any longer.
6. Lastly where is Nenshi? Not wanting to be seen to be taking the side of the ROC over Alberta, before he sees how the ROC is going to react. Not wanting to piss off the “normies” that see what Premier Smith is doing - and don’t mind it. Do with that what you will.
In crisis is opportunity, and this might be generational opportunity for National prosperity and unity to take hold. Prime Minister Carney is currently impressing and on the exact right track (imo). I’m also cheering and supporting his success. But, the proof will be in actions. I’ll second Premier Smith, comments, there has been a positive first step.
Well said.
While protesting your neutrality, you didn't sound very neutral when you were speaking of Danielle Smith in your written prologue, insistent Nenshi was missing in action to do. . . what? . . . Add his usual overstatement to the occasion? Pierre deserves your neutrality but Danielle doesn't? Just sayin'.
We're neutral on the specific issue of the CPC leadership.
Tough to be neutral on someone who is sowing division in our federation in order to distract from her government's blatant corruption.
The RCMP are investigating the CSF contracts. How about SNC Lavalin?
How about AHS?
So Jen, you believe that Carney is speaking to us as if speaking to an adult. Really? Isn't he the one who has been really evasive about questions about his role in Brookfield moving, unwilling to say where he lives or pays taxes, claimed to have resigned from every Board but managed to forget some, asked a CBC reporter to 'look inside yourself' has told reporters that they don't really understand how the world works, and has claimed that it is a "FACT" that Pierre is going to end abortion. Apparently you and I have vastly different ideas of speaking adult to adult. When he lies about little stuff that is easily disproved then he will be lying about the big stuff.
As to Alberta separatism, the numbers I've seen are 30 - 35% of Albertans and 28 - 32 % Of Sask. residents would consider separation. Those numbe3rs were before Carney won. Also, think back (likely before your time young lady) but the idea of joining the US was pushed in Saskatchewan with a party formed by Dennis Hamm and Dick Collver - the Unionist Party.
Also I'm really tired of hearing that Poilievre "blew a 25% lead". We all knew that the 25% lead was when the LPC support was in the toilet. If you look at the numbers the CPC did a good job of holding support during the campaign. Also consider that Trudeau tole Donald Trump that Canada would cease to exist if tariffs were imposed and then Carney kept repeating the 'orange man bad' schtick (the usual LPC sew seeds of fear) which was trumpeted by the MSM (does anyone still believe that the CBC is impartial???). My take is that if the election had run just another week there would have been s different result - but maybe I'm doing a woulda coulda.
I get what Jen means, though. A lot of women seem to have loved the lounge-lizardy vibe that JT gave off, but for those of us who didn't, it was really condescending. I couldn't stand listening to Trudeau speak, especially about feminism because I always felt that he thought women would be nowhere without his help. I will probably be irked by a lot of Carney's policies, but I'll be able to listen to him talk about them. Pierre is cocky, but I don't find him condescending and I always like listening to him.
Miss Jen, question: do "normies" only exist in urban areas?
and really ignore Alberta's concerns for 4 or 5 years ? do you think maybe thats been the problem for the last 35 years?
With regards to Smith and separation referenda, if it works for Quebec, and it sure as hell has, why wouldn’t Alberta try the same route? The Federal government has been hostile to it for electoral purposes - Trudeau and his cabinet deliberately went out of their way to dismiss Alberta concerns. Maybe this will make the Feds govern for everyone, something they have failed to do for a decade.
It works for Quebec because they have organized over years and decades. The have established provincial and federal parties to do the work. They kept these parties running through thick and thin. Alberta's separatists have done none of this (Maverick? Buffalo?) And until they do, nothing will happen on this file.
As a non-Albertan, I may be missing something, but I found the argument around separatism naive.
Jen highlighted how Alberta has been harmed by the rest of the country, giving much and getting less. But I guess her solution is for Alberta to bury its head in the sand? As far as I could follow, the answer seem to be that Alberta should just hope Carney and the provinces just *clap* do better *clap*?
It seems to me that separatism is a useful national political tool. Alberta does not have a huge number of cards to play, but a separatist movement may be one. The goal may not be actual separatism but leverage.
Chris, I (an Albertan) started a long screed to explain our feelings but I then cancelled it as it was simply detailing ...... blah, blah, blah ..... what Jen started to talk about but then dismissed.
So, okay, as to your comment and as to Jen. I am an Albertan who has a great deal of time for listening to the separatists. I am not one of them but I am willing to hear what they say and to see what they might reasonably (or otherwise) offer as a way forward. If a referendum were to be called and the question was "Leave, yes or no?" then I would say "No." but if the campaign was to be put in the sense of "Here is a reasonable program of how it would work; what do you think?" then I - and I think many others - would give respectful thought to what was presented. How would I vote in such a circumstance? My answer today is different than tomorrow than the next day than the next .....
In other words, a lot will depend on a lot. I really think Jen has underestimated how many people would view a respectful and thoughtful campaign because she has her own very firm view that colors her response.
As for "... how Alberta has been harmed by the rest of the country ... " as you put it, many of we in Alberta have views (as noted above, I started to list A and B and C and so forth but I stopped). Jen has lived here for about 15 years, I seem to recall that she said and she, like me, is an urban person; I suspect that she has not spent a lot of time - some but not a lot - in rural Alberta, which composes perhaps a third of our population so her knowledge, I expect is from her conversations among similar folk in Calgary and Edmonton.
I - very respectfully, very respectfully - believe that Jen does not have a full understanding of how many folks here see things.
And, I suggest that the same could be said of Saskatchewan. Or the BC interior.
It's complicated.
Prince2King Charles III is not QEII. My bet, she would have dodged this. The unknown consequences may be telling.
Mr. Carney has failed to disappoint after one week? The ball is in his court, but he is playing pickle ball... (directionless).
Ms. Smith is more politically astute than you believe. Mr. Nenshi is quiet because... he is LPC, and will be painted with that brush. Political annihilation if Mr. Carney trips. He will. And then we will have a snap election.
As of today, any referendum on sovereignty will fail. But as Millennials become the dominant voting force, nationally by 2030, but earlier in AB, the game changes.
The G&M's analysis of an APP was? It made sense. Boomers hate it but in three years time, who cares? Referendum.
Replace the RCMP with an Alberta Police Force? How many Albertans work for the OPP or SQ? Referendum.
Hire Albertans to collect our taxes? Referendum. Sorry WPG and NB.
Alberta sets immigration? Stop the influx of economic refugees from eastern Canada? Referendum.
Hello.
Your declaration of neutrality has been RoadRunner'd by Damien Kurek, Alta MP, giving up his seat for PP. He wins that and all the internecine stuff evaporates.
First, he can’t be seated for months. That leaves lots of time for things to change. It took a while for O’Toole to be tossed.
Second, the interesting thing about this is that the biggest complaints are coming from the provinces. They could be providing cover for elements inside the federal party, or they could just be elements of a broader coalition that is being shut out by the federal leadership.
I don't think the NDP is going to disappear Federally. Today's Star had an article quoting Charlie Angus as saying the NDP 'ran an absolutely disastrous campaign' and “at some point, we stopped being the New Democratic Party of Canada and we became Team Jagmeet.”
Angus also didn't rule out another run at the leadership either. Which is interesting considering he didn't run in this past election. Leaves me wondering if part of his reason for not running was dissatisfaction with Singh's leadership? I think an NDP led by Charlie would be a much different animal than the one led by Singh & if Angus had been leader I suspect the NDP results of this election would have been much less disastrous.
Having read and watched some of Charlie’s absolutely rabid communication over the past six months, I think a quiet place would benefit him (and the rest of us).
He certainly does appear to have gone 'off the rails' over the last year, compared to 10 years ago. I think some of it could be explained by the threats & harassment directed at him & his family over the last couple of years. And if he's been frustrated by the direction the NDP has been going over that same time, bottled up anger can erupt in some strange ways.
Don't think it's in his personality to spend much time in a quiet place so I'm sure we'll be hearing from him again. :-)
I’m quite sure we will, unfortunately. The harassment, while not excusable, might be a chicken/egg thing.
As an outside observer, I thought that the NDP dropped the ball when the membership chose Singh over Angus as leader. Angus had the Parliamentary experience and the brains to lead.
That was then. His recent public statements about various issues gives me cause to reconsider. Angus has the street credentials to reconnect the NDP with working class people but his judgment on some matters makes me wonder?
Absolutely agree on all points.
The urban membership of the NDP chose Singh as leader over Angus who would have been a bridge between the working class & urban sections of the NDP.
I've followed him on FB for a number of years & used to read through most of what he posted, these days - sadly, not so much.
If he really wants back in to politics perhaps he will run in Fort McMurray. He will get a warm "reception" there.
Great commentary on the benefits of constitutional monarchy. Anthropomorphizing the State is the entire point/benefit. Too many people (I admit to once being one of them as a smarmy kid) get hung up on "inbred unelected gits should not be Head of State by birthright". That's true. Particularly in isolation it is an appealing argument.
But like communism it completely ignores human nature. The communists don't understand incentives/self-interest and the republicans seemingly don't understand tribalism. Having someone who plays on one of two or more opposing "teams" as the head of state (hello USA) is a recipe for massive division in the country (hello again USA). As the great Thomas Sowell says, there are no solutions, there are only tradeoffs. The benefits of having a non-partisan head of state far outweigh the virtually non-existent costs of potentially having an inbred unelected git symbolizing the state.
And the reason God Save the King is a great national anthem (perhaps second only to La Marseillaise) is embodied in the line, "Long to reign over us". Here again, the republicans miss the point - these are not words being sung by supplicants. This is telling the world that it is only the King/Queen of THEIR Country (someone who is only in that position because THEY ALLOW him/her to be the living symbol of their Country), who will ever "reign over them". Essentially, "we put him/her there and don't you fucking dare think we will ever bow down to ANYBODY else". God Save the King, indeed.
And I co-sign Jen's words re PP's pandering re WEF et al. It is revolting.
The king’s brother is an Epstein pedophile. Gross
Even while Trudeau was still Prime Minister there was a Carleton Liberal whom I follow on Twitter who was hyping up the prospect of Poilievre losing his riding. Boy, I did not take that Liberal seriously!
I wasn't completely surprised by the loss. Was in the Ottawa area the weekend of the derecho 3 years ago & had a good look at some of that destruction. I recall reading (maybe from Twitter?) that people in Poilievre's riding were wondering where he was afterward the storm & were unhappy that he apparently didn't make an appearance. Wonder now if the seeds for the defeat were initially sown then?
He still got 45% of the vote which was similar to 2019.
The "Poilievre hated in Carleton" narrative seems like BS. He was in a more competitive riding than he was willing to acknowledge and the NDP collapse (to about 1%) put the Liberal over the top.
I don't think any leader will make this mistake again. Battle River with 80% CPC vote share it will be.
Well, Jen, I absolutely disagree with you about your comments on Danielle Smith's move to lower the threshold for calling a referendum and related items. [Quelle surprise, right?]
First, I do think that citizens have a right to express themselves and to demand "better" from their government(s). That means that where any particular group feels that it is disadvantaged or abused in some manner by that/those government(s) those citizens should have the right to organize and try to put to other citizens a question as to whether this or that action or inaction is appropriate. So, democracy.
The lowering of the threshold is simply recognition that the previous rule calling for a petition of 15% of the voters, all of which had to be collected within 90 days whereas they now must collect signatures of 10% of voters within 90 days. In my mind, the previous threshold and time requirement, because it was so great (threshold) and short (timeframe), was tantamount to denying any real possibility of a citizen initiated referendum being successful in resulting in a referendum call. Now, it is marginally, just marginally, easier to collect the signatures in the required time.
Second, I am someone who is often fussed by the restrictions on donations and such on election advertising and such. You know, free speech and such. The proposed new rules still impose maximum contribution limits but they do not quite so greatly prevent free speech. For all of those folks who argue about elections, referenda being "bought" I refer you to the contribution limits. For those who argue that groups will find ways around the contribution limits I refer you to the last Calgary civic election where it is argued (reasonably in my view) union groups bought the election of many candidates. Plus ca change and all that.
Third, I do understand that these changes might well make it easier to call a separation referendum but I respond with a hearty, "So what?" My point is that if separation is such a non-starter as many have said, then allow the proponents to get that referendum called and then bury the idea so it is d-e-a-d dead. If, however, as has been mooted in recent polling, there are already thirty per cent in favor of separation in some form then that issue had better be confronted head on. You know, democracy: governments need know out what is bothering people and provide proper responses.
Fourth, well, Hell!, I am pretty much a libertarian on many issues insofar as I think that I - or you - have the right to say what is on my mind and if enough other folks think similarly then our government(s) should listen and respond in some manner to take into account the will - whatever is that will - of the electorate. If, in fact, my opinions - or yours - are shown to be oddball, then knowing that should put paid to our notions.