When is it okay to talk about a woman’s appearance? There are magazines (I think) and websites and Instagram accounts dedicated to it. When you’re in the public eye, it’s going to happen. In politics, I prefer to think of it less about “appearance” and more about “image;” appearance is just working with what you have but an image is curated.

Those aiming for, or in, higher offices all do it. Stephen Harper tried out “Steve” early in his political career. There’s a story about the work that went into the choice of the blue sweater for an ad after he was Prime Minister. Pierre Poilievre traded in his collared shirt for tight tees and lost the glasses (because no one who wears glasses has ever been elected Prime Minister). Related to appearance, maybe, but the purpose is building an image.

Considering I spent the weekend watching Preston Manning’s umpteenth attempt at a comeback tour, I was initially going to pass on watching a separatist vlog. However, it was shared by someone who wouldn’t normally share that type of content and I was up extra early, so, I had time.

I got a few laughs out of it because he began with “normally I wouldn’t talk about a woman’s appearance” and then went all in. “You know where I’m going with this,” he offered, and in all honesty, I didn’t have the slightest clue.

He was talking about Danielle Smith’s “appearance” but he went so much further than that. This vlog, by a person who may actually have some clout in the separatist circles, was not intending to be mean, per se, but it was savage. Not to Danielle Smith the person but to the image of Danielle Smith, Premier.

Which, in this case, is far worse for her.

“A strong, Conservative, woman”

Over the past ten years, conservatives have started pushing back against feminism. It appeared to be in response (and effectively opposition) to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s embrace of it (or at least his curated image of doing so). At the UCP’s inaugural convention in 2018, Rona Ambrose led a panel of women in a discussion about women in politics.

Heather Forsyth called the idea of barriers to women in politics “socialist crap.” In defence of that “socialist crap,” women weren’t even considered actual people who could vie for a seat as a Member of Parliament until 1929, and there’s not a lot of work/life balance for politicians, and there’s the issue of who typically gets parachuted into a riding that has a better likelihood of winning, so, yeah, people are still curious about barriers that have existed for women.

The bit in the Alberta Legislature over the past few years has been to take every criticism from the Official Opposition as an attack on the gender of the people in charge of the Ministry they’re critiquing. If they’re women. Otherwise, it doesn’t seem to be an issue.

The first time I saw UCP House Leader Joseph Schow stand up to defend the Premier as “a strong, Conservative, woman” it struck my funny bone because I immediately thought how laughable it would be for him to accuse the Opposition of unfairly picking on “a strong, Conservative, man.”

However, it was not entirely about defending the gender of UCP ministers and the Premier (even though they only did it for the women), nor was it entirely about weaponizing feminism against critique from “the left” (which I definitely think it was)— it was also about the image they were trying to project.

For the most part, I wouldn’t even say it was wrong-headed.

From what I’ve seen and heard, voters generally accepted and agreed with that image of the Premier.

Yet, those who I’d argue were targeted with Danielle Smith’s attempt to elicit support of her big feelings at the Alberta West Assembly, were not moved in the way she intended.

They think she’s broken.

“She’s not okay.”

This particular separatist wasn’t abrasive, arrogant, nor trying to be unkind, but neither was he fazed by her depiction of a person who cares ever so much that she almost shed a tear while talking about federal environmental policy.

He showed a couple clips of her, saying she looked “gaunt,” “tired,” and “haggard.”

He then compared it with a clip of her and Prime Minister Carney at the MOU signing (where she looked like she was having a pretty good time, frankly) and saw that as evidence she must have been under duress.

Hey, I’m not saying he’s nailing this analysis— I laughed out loud more than once watching this thing— but I’m not his target audience. I have absolutely no sympathy for the fact that Danielle Smith has painted herself into a corner because it has real consequences for me and my fellow Canadians who live in Alberta.

For his audience though, which I presume is fully separatist and separatist-leaning Danielle Smith supporters, he’s creating a narrative; and it is not a good one.

With the caveat that he is “not a psychiatrist,” he said he “doesn’t know what’s going on with her,” but she looks like “she needs help.”

“I think it’s just too much for her.”

OUCH.

Personally, I guffawed my way through her performance but I figured it would be taken as evidence of how deeply she cares about oil and the (almost) overwhelming empathy she has since they’ve had to tough it out with record production and profits since the “jobless recovery” after the 2014 oil price downturn.

Apparently, I was mistaken.

In this person’s eyes (and perhaps a few of the 35,000 plus views from those tuning in as of Tuesday morning), she’s not handling herself well.

He questioned her emotional and mental state.

He offered sympathy for what he identified as weakness.

He suggested she needs to step back and take some time for herself because it’s obviously beyond her capacity to continue.

I critique a lot of things about Danielle Smith— decisions, language, inability to see past her nose, political gambles… I could go on— but her image was, I thought, pretty solid.

Then again, I’m not the audience they were trying to convince.

The audience was Danielle Smith supporters.

The audience was Alberta conservatives, and UCP supporters, and separatists, and separatist-leaning UCP supporters; and they didn’t see someone play acting her way through emotions… they saw a woman breaking under the pressure.

From his perception, and the comments on his channel, instead of being moved by it more than a few of them are, apparently, ready to sign a “get well soon” card and send her on her way.

The leopards have picked up the scent of weakness in the UCP.

Again.

Thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and becomes a free subscriber! Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work. To those who already do, I cannot thank you enough!

Subscribe now

Share

I spent my weekend watching Preston Manning’s Alberta West Assembly online. It was, I presume, a group of people who are in Preston Manning’s rolodex from western Canada (and a few people they recommended) all gathered to offer their thoughts and ask questions of people Preston Manning wants to hear talk about separatism. He also invited Stephen Carter to be the lone voice saying “absolutely not”.

Danielle Smith was there on the first day, offering sentiments out of both sides of her mouth, which is why somewhere around 90 per cent of Albertans don’t believe her. Separatists and Danielle Smith supporters believe she’s voting to stay because she said she would.

Albertans who are neither separatists nor Danielle Smith supporters believe she’s not going to vote to stay in Canada because of her actions; changing and amending the law at least four times to help them get their question in front of Albertans, and then offering a referendum question about having another referendum when the courts said she couldn’t just forego Indigenous consultation.

Some, like me, think that if you need a new mandate from Albertans, you should hold an election and run on the things you want a new mandate for rather than hiding behind a citizen’s initiative referendum that only happened because of your efforts to help them along.

Yet, here we are— facing a cost of $130 million for a referendum, unprecedented pressure on our elections staff, allegations of interference in the process (again), and the general feeling that we shouldn’t have to be dealing with this bullshit at all when no voter was told this was what Danielle Smith and her limp AF caucus would do if they were elected.

And Preston Manning is out here trying to relive the glory days of Reform.

There’s an audience for it, to be sure, but that’s more of a testament to how deep our triggers are in this province.

If I didn’t know that Preston Manning wrote an “apology” opinion piece for “his role” in Danielle Smith’s 2014 floor crossing, or that Danielle Smith had played a major role in the Manning Centre’s events since, or that she appointed Preston Manning to chair the COVID inquiry panel (and paid him $300k to do it), I might not think Mr. Manning offered her yet another opportunity to try and convince Albertans that she’s totes on the ‘stay’ side. However; I do.

Not because I’m not being charitable but because I can’t look at the history and convince myself otherwise (let alone you). I also remember how, from 2015-2019, the Alberta government and federal government tried to help out of work oil and gas employees go back to school for a trade. Conservatives mocked and derided that program and then went all sad face after forming government in 2019 when Alberta really needed more qualified tradespeople.

Political rhetoric has so many consequences.

We’re living them.

Thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and becomes a free subscriber! Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work. To those who already do, I cannot thank you enough!

Subscribe now

Read more

First off, congratulations to the NDP’s Kyle Campbell and thanks to everyone who put their name on the ballot. The people who show up make all the difference in our democratic system.

Now... onto the rest.

Oh the humanity. And the takes.

Good thing I don’t mind crowded spaces.

“The polls were wrong!”

“It’s the Tory Party’s fault for splitting the vote!”

“Where did all the late votes comes from?!”

“This is because of immigration!”

“It’s Danielle’s fault for cozying up to Carney!”

“It’s Danielle’s fault for running a separatist!”

“It’s because of the separatist referendum!”

Woof.

Let’s start at the beginning.

Don’t blame the polls

I learned during the General Election in 2025 that pollsters don’t poll at the riding level. None of them do.

The only way to get that data would be door-to-door and the costs would be astronomical with few people willing to pay. Also, it would take local knowledge to even get a good sample; some neighbourhoods lean one way and if they over-sampled that one, it would skew the results. It’s also difficult to get an accurate sample when the outcome looks like it could be close; it’s like all the proof you need that every vote does count. In order to get an accurate count, one would have to ask every house and hope they were willing to not just be honest but also rely on them showing up to vote (and fewer than 65 per cent usually do).

All that is to say it would be a lot of work with little opportunity to be able to predict the outcome with more accuracy.

What pollsters like 338 do instead is look at whatever provincial polling they do have, perhaps considering any trends, as well as the data from the previous election (which is solid because it’s voter turnout and how those people voted— the “only poll that matters” and all that), and try to make as educated a guess as possible how that riding will turn out.

With so many unknowns— the biggest being actual turnout— a riding-level prediction is, at its very best, only ever an educated guesstimate.

Vote splitting does not exist

People who think the Tory Party took votes away from the UCP, or the Liberals took votes from the NDP, are wishing that those voters would show up and support the party they like instead. That’s cool.

A better question (and conversation, in my opinion) is “why didn’t they?”

Danielle Smith made it illegal for another political party in Alberta to put the word “conservative” in their name. She says it’s because it would be “confusing” but in my experience, no one is anywhere near as confused about anything as the Premier of Alberta. And I’m just basing on that how often she claims others are confused about something almost no one is confused about.

No one is seriously saying that those who voted Tory were “confused” about their options.

And here’s the thing— those who showed up and voted Tory could have voted UCP.

It was an option on the same ballot they received when they voted Tory. Those voters, and the ones who voted Liberal, and the ones who voted NDP, and the ones who voted for the independent candidate, chose not to.

They may as well blame those who voted NDP for not voting UCP.

Oh wait… that actually happened, too.

Jason Kenney’s theory when he merged the PCs and Wildrose was that it would be easier to remove the competition rather than doing the hard work to actually prove to voters that they are the better choice they claim to be.

Today, he chose a different tack.

Folks planning to vote “to send a message” by starting the separation process: please take note of the NDP’s win tonight in the most conservative part of urban Canada.

A vote to separate is a vote to help the NDP win the next provincial election, and for the Liberal Party of Canada to win far more Alberta seats.

Supporting separatism:

- Splits the conservative movement

- Pushes many patriotic conservative voters to support the Liberals and NDP

That’s not how to make Alberta stronger, but weaker and more divided.

Jason Kenney on X, September 15, 2026

I guess kudos for not blaming the Tories?

The partisanship is still mind-numbing. If having a “natural governing party” isn’t great for a country, it’s no better for a province (even if you’re okay with it because it helps your side). Every elected official should be scared to do things they weren’t elected to do because they might lose their seat.

They should also take the hint and leave gracefully afterwards.

I don’t care what banner they fly or what identity they choose for themselves; when an elected official isn’t afraid of being held accountable, that’s a very bad thing— for all of us.

Grasping at straws

A couple of Conservative “influencers” started steering the train to crazy town. One attempted to cast doubt on the outcome because of the “large batch of votes” added before polls had finished reporting. That large batch was advanced votes, which, just like individual polling stations, had to be counted all together, and the count is released only after it was complete.

43 per cent of the total ballots cast in the by-election were cast in advance polls. Just like individual polls on election day, it’s poll-by-poll as it’s completed, they don’t release the numbers half-way through.

The second influencer I saw blamed immigrants.

Maybe he saw an opportunity to double down on the referendum questions, or maybe he’s just an arsehole. It could be both. I can’t say for certain but if Jason Kenney wants to focus on something that makes Alberta “weaker and more divided,” there’s an empty space being filled with some awful rhetoric that could use some pushback.

But what does it mean?

By-elections can be a gauge of public sentiment in the moment, just like a poll. The UCP had the incumbency and they lost it. That’s not a small detail.

However, there could be a few reasons the UCP lost; turnout, waiting nine months after the former MLA, Minister of Oil and Gas— I mean Environment and Protected Areas— resigned, the bait and switch from a mainstream conservative party to a separatist-friendly party that foists a referendum on a province they had no mandate for, or that their candidate’s federalist feelings were in doubt (exactly like the Premier’s); any one, or a combination of, are good reasons why the UCP lost that by-election.

For the NDP, a protest vote yesterday could disappear before the next election.

Those are some things it could mean.

What it certainly means is that the NDP have secured their claim to a positive narrative today— and until the next election— and the UCP’s will be a little weaker for it.

The same would have happened for Naheed Nenshi’s leadership; the narrative would have suffered if the NDP had lost.

It would have fueled resentment from inside his party that he wasn’t delivering on what he was elected to do. That’s already happened before.

A win would have offered the UCP a narrative of strength.

If the UCP would have won, they’d be saying that Albertans showed their support for the direction the UCP is taking us. They would have said it was validation that Albertans are on their side.

The loss takes that away from them and offers it to the NDP.

I do find it interesting that UCP supporters are also blaming Danielle Smith, albeit for the exact opposite reasons. The UCP is in trouble; and if the UCP is in trouble, then so is Danielle Smith.

It’s about freaking time.

Thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and becomes a free subscriber! Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work. To those who already do, I cannot thank you enough!

Subscribe now

Share

Premier says she won’t elbow out TC Energy after document leak

Danielle Smith’s “libertarianism” looks a lot more like “if you won’t do it I’ll just take over your business, damn it!”

The document outlines plans to wrest regulatory control over the province’s main natural gas transmission line, called the Nova Gas Transmission pipeline, owned and operated by TC Energy, away from the federal Canada Energy Regulator, and to create two new government-owned corporations. One of those Crown corporations could force companies to build natural gas pipeline expansions based on government priorities, while the other could build and operate the pipelines itself.

Those moves, according to the document, would raise prices on ordinary Albertans and businesses, but would bring in more royalties for the government.

Drew Anderson, The Narwhal, September 11, 2026

After the Narwhal received a purported “Cabinet report,” Energy Minister Brian Jean said it was just asking questions. Naheed Nenshi said the UCP was rolling out the red carpet (over Albertans) for data centres.

Danielle Smith, the smartest person in the room, said she isn’t ruling out trying to elbow her way between the private company and agreements they already have in place.

Smith didn’t rule out her government moving forward with legislation to spur new natural gas infrastructure, something the cabinet report says could land the province in court with TC Energy.

The legislation recommended in the report would look to override federally approved co-operation agreements the company has in place with another major natural gas provider in Alberta, while also allowing the government to force companies to invest in new projects if deemed in the province’s best interest.

Jack Farrell, The Canadian Press, September 12, 2026

Because it’s working out so well for other jurisdictions where a person who thinks they know everything are putting their gross, sticky fingers all over, so, why not here, too?

Art of the surreal, I tell you.

The Alberta Bloc is no longer a pipe dream; but a better name is

Former Cyprus-Medicine Hat MLA Drew Barnes is a co-founder of a new federal party, “Alberta Now.” Missed opportunity to call it the Alberta Party of Canada, which would have been fun for me. Mr. Barnes says that the party will function like the Bloc Quebecois and focus solely on Alberta’s “values, culture, and needs,” adding that the party will only run candidates in Alberta.

I’m not going to lie— it’s about time. I swore I’d written about this exact thing before but I cannot find it (could be in one of the 300 unpublished posts in my drafts folder). I’ve definitely thought about it many times, though.

For a province that has claimed to want representation but refuses to do anything different to get that representation, an Alberta Bloc has been exactly what they need.

Minus the fact that the creation of another provincial-centric party will probably mean that the CPC never forms government again. I’m okay with that too— Pierre Poilievre has added so many toxic chemicals that it deserves to continue its metamorphosis into the People’s Party of Canada.

Whether it will be allowed to grow and prosper is another matter entirely.

Despite the fact that Mr. Poilievre seems intent upon extinguishing any hope of a comeback for the party (although I said the same thing about Justin Trudeau and look at all the egg on my face now), when the separatist WEXIT group reared its ugly head in 2019 in hopes of recreating the success of Reform, I’m certain that CPC political operatives had a hand in drowning it before it could take a breath from them. It was just too cleanly dealt with and disposed of to have been natural.

And don’t even try and bring up the Alberta Party here— that was a professional hit that required a clean up crew and everyone saw it. The WEXIT-turned-Maverick (ded) party… didn’t really do anything aside from letting Derek freaking Sloan run for them and then they just… stopped filing. And who (aside from me) would even remember who they were when that happened? You cannot convince me that name wasn’t especially chosen to do just that.

I will be keeping my eye on Mr. Barnes’ party, however, to see if it suffers the same fate.

In all honesty, though, I think they can, and should, make something of it. It’ll be the closest Alberta conservatives have gotten to a “promise kept” on the federal file.

And it’s about time.

IT’S BY-ELECTION DAY!!

I love election days. Aside from when I’m playing the funeral march for the party beforehand, there’s just so many reasons to be hopeful!

Also, vote splitting doesn’t exist. You don’t have to take my word for it; but may I recommend the Enlightened Savage?

In Alberta, it’s a phrase as common in political campaigns as “hard-working Albertans” or “Laurentian Elites”: “Don’t split the vote”.

What it really means is “please don’t make me have to work for this: I’m lazy and I’m entitled to win.“

Brilliant.

Many years ago, two of my favourite podcasters fought about this.

We’ll call them C and C so no one feels bad.

C said that vote splitting doesn’t exist because if one party failed to make the case for being the better choice, that is their fault.

This is the correct take.

C talked about how he taught his children about vote-splitting by asking who wanted ham and pineapple pizza, Hawaiian, and (I can’t remember but I assume) a vegetarian catastrophe no one wanted.

C is willing to experiment on his children to make an incorrect point.

Obviously C is horrible. And wrong. Doubly horrible.

The mistake that C made is that no one is being asked to choose between the same options with different names. Even if you’re outside of it juuuuusssst enough to think it is so.

They are not ham and pineapple and Hawaiian; they are ham, pineapple, yellow peppers, mushrooms, and provolone; and Hawaiian. Obviously one is better. One is definitely better if you’re allergic to yellow peppers. One is less bad if you’re lactose intolerant. The fact of the matter is that they are not the same, even if someone thinks they’re “close enough”.

Voters know the difference.

This is why vote splitting doesn’t exist.

In 2015, people were digging in their heels on Wildrose or PC. Jason Kenney wanted to take away the other option entirely. Danielle Smith did, too, but a few of her MLA’s didn’t cross the floor with her. Instead, she made a law that no other party can call themselves “Conservative” in Alberta politics again because they don’t want to give people who reflexively mark their “X” by the word “Conservative” (without having any clue who they’re actually electing) another option.

It’s like people who eat 19,000 grain bread. It’s not the same as a French loaf. Even if they’re both bread.

Snicker. Bread.

“AI will be used to help humanity.” ~ Danielle Smith

AI doesn’t have the guardrails we’re being assured it does. Not because Danielle Smith thinks differently, but because Anthropic releases threats they detected and stopped— eventually.

Their list doesn’t exactly give one the fuzzy-feelies. Humans still need to supervise, but there are questions about whether AI agents can avoid detection if they don’t want to let their human (for now) overlords know what they’re doing.

On the one hand, I think, “how bad can it be? We can always just turn it off, right?” But on the other, I realize that every draft I have is on the internet. Every post is on the internet. If it all went down, I’d be starting from scratch.

They always say you should back up your data.

Final thoughts

Thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and becomes a free subscriber! Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work. To those who already do, I cannot thank you enough!

Subscribe now

Share

Read more

It wasn’t that I suddenly had second thoughts about Mr. Fildebrandt’s anti-Ottawa blather. Projecting his personal issues with Ontario Liberals notwithstanding, it was obvious after I read some of the responses to his article that dunking on him for it would be a waste of my energy and your time. Mr. Fildebrandt was just a guy from Ontario who picked up on the local lore in Alberta and doubled and tripled down on it.

We have many such politicians and operatives in Alberta’s history and there’s nothing remarkable about what they’ve perpetuated here— they’re just the mean girls of Alberta politics. The people that matter are the ones they’ve consistently taken advantage of.

I’m not going to excuse any grown-assed adult for falling for the same lies over and over again, I’m just, as always, going to do my best to explain the effect their lies have had on my neighbours, and my family, and people I did and do call friends.

It doesn’t matter what side of the spectrum you fall on; if you’re an Albertan, you should care.

I chose the events randomly. There were two in a row, hosted by two groups I (thought) I knew nothing about. When you spend as much time as I do inhaling Alberta politics, however, I’m reminded that it is, in fact, a grossly incestuous circle.

Let’s Talk Alberta — Lethbridge, Sept. 9

When I first decided to attend this event, the only person named on it was Chris Scott. I did not know the name. When I had to look it up after I arrived at the wrong address in Lethbridge, two others had been added and I knew at least one: Cory Morgan. The third was Benoit Trudeau (a very distant relation to the same PMs Trudeau, he said).

The person who made the welcome speech and initial introductions informed around 50 of us in the audience that they welcome, and try to have, people who are for or against independence. This group was not quite as diverse, she said, but their perspectives were not entirely the same.

Mr. Trudeau hails from Quebec; the birthplace of foundational separatism.

If you happened to have missed that incredible dismissal from Bloc Quebecois leader Yves Francois Blanchet dropped on Alberta separatists, I’m happy to repeat it in all its brutality; “The first thing you have to do is define yourself as a nation. I’m not certain that oil and gas qualify as a culture,” he said.

Savage.

But also… a devastatingly direct hit to every person and politician who has forced our provincial identity into a single industry.

Mr. Trudeau offered his experience in Quebec politics as a hinge and threw some shade at our political predictability that I have also pointed out before— one of the reasons that Quebec enjoys leverage and power is because Quebeckers are willing to hold their government and their politicians accountable. Albertans keep doing the same thing over and over and somehow expect a different result.

We wear that, even if it’s not us specifically who are to blame for it. That’s a good question for those who are willing to vote “differently” but are dedicated to only one specific “difference”. To me, it’s the same brand of loyalty, even if it’s to a different party/sign/colour than other Albertans.

He had no respect for the question being offered to Albertans, nor the process by which it was being done and he spoke plainly.

“When referendum came, we were able to campaign on one question; not a fruit salad of them,” he snarked, adding that he wasn’t a separatist so much as a “sovereigntist”.

The focus, he said, should be taking control of what a province can control. Spend more money to do what the federal government already does. Take responsibility for things the province can and could control like its pension plan and tax collection. That requires trust, and the ability to rely on your neighbours to stand up when something is going wrong and vote out anyone who doesn’t respect what is in their— and also their neighbour’s— best interests.

Quebec is, I think, what some uncharitable Albertans would call “woke.” What with all their high taxes and well-funded social programs and all.

The second speaker was Cory Morgan. You may know him from the Western Standard, the Rebel, or perhaps from his time many years ago as an Independence Party leader.

All that is to say that he is a long-time advocate for more independence but still maintains the idealism that such independence would come with less authoritarianism. If only we knew who would be leading the “country” if independence miraculously happened.

The part of his speech that piqued my interest was when he was talking about the “insane” amount of “vitriol” he was seeing lately. He couldn’t understand it, he said. I’ll come back to that.

Finally, the once-mysterious Mr. Scott took the microphone and began telling the story of how I know of him; the owner of the Whistle Stop cafe. Yes, it’s a throwback to COVID mandates.

He was a disarming speaker. On the one hand, he was just a dude with barely-concealed anger issues. Insert meme of things men will do rather than get therapy. On the other, he had a “bit” where he called people who were definitely not “friends” and essentially wove his speech around comments on Facebook.

“I saw a group of people with red shirts,” he said. “I thought, ‘I like red, too’, and so I went to say ‘hi’.”

“I talked to my new friend Tom who said ‘I’m a proud Canadian’ and I said ‘I’m a proud Canadian, too!’ and I said we need to talk and have a conversation about it, and he said ‘it was a non-starter’.”

He just wants to “have a conversation” about it.

Next, he mentioned that “his new friend Carla” said something that he was sorry to repeat but she called him “a fucking traitor”. He didn’t think that was very nice.

He just wants to “have a conversation” after all.

This was about the time that I decided I was definitely going to get up and “have a conversation” myself. Once upon a time I would have taken my notes and left. Apparently, that is no longer the case.

Before I leave that, I have to add that he mentioned he was sitting in a jail cell five years ago because the government had him arrested. In my notes I added an asterisk and wrote “which government was that, Chris?”

After the intermission, that saw at least half of the original 50 people in the room not return, it was time for the Q and A portion. One person went. Then a second. I decided to go up too.

“I spend most of my time explaining conservatives to people on the left but tonight I’d like to explain why this is an emotional topic and why you might be seeing more vitriol. I’m going to pose this question to each of the speakers; what changes for you if a separation referendum passes or fails?”

Mr. Scott and Mr. Morgan (though a longer version) said “nothing.”

“Right. Nothing changes for you and that’s why people are upset because things would fundamentally change for them if a separation referendum passed.”

Incredibly, I heard a few “oh’s” from the remaining audience as if they hadn’t thought of that at all.

I continued to explain the same with more words and I will admit my voice cracked. I don’t want to think it’s because I was emotional about the topic because that would just prove them right; but I heard it. I stood and listened to the response, then returned to my seat. It was late and I still had a drive, and saw I had a text from one of my kids and decided I could leave before it ended.

When I got up, a lady on the other side of the aisle said “good question”. I smiled and nodded, and continued toward the exit. As I passed the lady who had given the welcome, she reached out, squeezed my arm a bit, and thanked me for the question. As I pushed open the exterior door, an older gentleman was behind it. I laughed and apologized and he said, “that was a really great question. Thank you.”

Honestly— I didn’t expect a single ‘thank you’, let alone three.

And I thought to myself, on the drive back, that perhaps it was just the setup of that specific event. Maybe some people really did want to hear other perspectives. It didn’t really distill until after Wednesday night’s event.

(Late addition, another view from Jen Handley at their stop in Nanton)

Alberta Women for Independence — Cowley; Sept. 10

As the author of Women of ABpoli, I had a special interest in “Women for Independence” and I’m thankful I was able to go. Yet again, I had the wrong address but Cowley has barely more than four avenues (there’s a “3A avenue”) and I knew I just had to find where all the extra cars were parked. I get why that might seem “off” to people in urban centres but it’s easy enough in rural.

I found it after a few rounds and went in. This event was smaller than the previous one— as expected— with about 25-30 attendees, and also not a room full of women— which was somehow not expected.

The host at this event was Angela Tabak. I did not know who she was but I found the common threads quickly enough.

She told us how she had found herself at home with time on her hands during the pandemic. That’s when she discovered the Wildrose Independence Party of Alberta (WIPA) [or as Chandler Bing said, “whhhiippahhhh!” (old WoABP pod joke)]. Through WIPA, she became friends with Kathy Flett (formerly of WEXIT, WIPA, and currently competing for the UCP nomination in Sherwood Park).

She began reading books by Dr. Michael Wagner (part II of three) on why independence parties in Alberta die (“ego and infighting” or maybe just power plays by opportunists who will bail for the party in power instead of putting in the immense amount of work to build something Albertans would support… ahem…).

Her group (WINS) assisted with a seven-part video series but the videos are all over the place; one by Jason Lavigne (the Jason Lavigne Show, separatist supporter/independent media, who also ran in Poilievre’s by-election), Cory Morgan, and others.

Ms. Tabak had a different tactic than Let’s Talk Alberta; she went through each of the questions on the referendum.

While admitting the additional nine questions were both confusing and suspect, she also said it was an opportunity to “send Ottawa a message”.

As if decades of sending a solid majority of Conservative MPs back to Ottawa, or Ralph Klein’s famous Alberta salute, or a bumper sticker that said “tax this Brian”, or Reform’s rise to power, or even a referendum on equalization under Premier Jason Kenney had never managed to adequately convey Alberta’s “message” to Ottawa.

I… digress?

Despite the fact that she and Kathy Flett had been holding backyard discussions on independence since at least 2024, the group was told they needed to register as a Third-Party Advertizer (TPA) if they planned to continue them. They were also told they needed to take a position on all of the questions (yes, they’re all supposed to; no they aren’t; no, it doesn’t look like Elections Alberta has the power or desire to enforce any rules now).

Ms. Tabak said that’s the reason they chose to support “yes” to all nine and Option 2.

When she asked for audience engagement on the nine questions, I contributed.

For the question about withholding support services to people who are only in Canada temporarily, I offered the fact that Alberta doesn’t offer support services to them now. When someone is here temporarily, they are assigned a SIN that begins with a “9”. No Government of Alberta programs (or contracted programs) will allow payment for services provided to people with those SIN’s.

Just a little factoid I picked up at a couple of my previous 27 previous jobs.

For the question about whether proof of citizenship should be provided to be allowed to vote, both she and another audience member offered anecdotes about non-citizens having been mistakenly sent voting cards. In both of the anecdotes, the individuals knew they weren’t allowed to vote and destroyed the cards. Somehow, that was evidence of the need to protect our elections harder.

One person in the audience asked if anyone knew of a country that was as generous as Canada to non-residents so he could move there and get free services. Another suggested he move to Mexico and renounce his citizenship, then move back to get all the “free money”. My good gawd.

Okay. That happened, yes, and it was frustrating, yes; and I’m not even telling you about what that same dude said that was worse because I had a point to make.

…

Right.

Just because you can’t reach everyone doesn’t mean you give up the floor

There are people in Alberta— our neighbours, friends, family— whose brains have been cooked by Facebook memes and smarmy Conservative politicians.

Of that, there is no doubt.

I’m not excusing grown-assed adults from their responsibility to figure out what is real and what is fake.

However.

People are confused about these questions and they are seeking answers.

From what I can tell, the only people offering those answers have the same agenda that every opportunistic Conservative politician before them did; to take advantage of them and screw the rest of us.

I hope that makes you a little defensive, too, because it’s obvious to me that we can and should be doing more.

Thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and becomes a free subscriber! Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work. To those who already do, I cannot thank you enough!

Subscribe now

Share

The Trump Administration has long set about breaching a bond of trust with Canadians but an excellent writeup in the Toronto Star reminded me that it’s not just us they’ve broken trust with— they’ve broken trust with the rest of the free world, too.

There’s a great scene from The Newsroom where Jeff Daniels responds to a question at a panel debate. It’s actually closer to a tirade, but within, he says,

And with a straight face, you’re going to tell students that America is so star spangled awesome that we’re the only ones in the world who have freedom. Canada has freedom. Japan has freedom. The UK, France, Italy, Germany, Spain, Australia, Belgium has freedom. So 207 sovereign states in the world, like 180 of them have freedom.

The Newsroom, 2012

Actually, it’s more like 84 “free” democratic nations, with 65 being “partly free,” so it’s closer to 150. The speech is just very good otherwise. According to Freedom House, which has been keeping track of democratic movement across the globe since 1973, worrying trends are showing a decline in many democratic countries. The U.S. lost three points on the scale of 100, moving down to 81. Canada has a 97.

There wasn’t an easy list available, but doing a little bit of math (with my usual caveat; I already had to change the number of free and partly free from 130 to 150) on the countries I know are in the index outside of the U.S.— E.U., U.K, Canada, Australia, and Nordic countries— there are more than 600 million people. Not quite double the U.S. population, but also not inclusive of all 84 countries.

Canada doesn’t have an official boycott of U.S. products but many Canadians are turning away from them in protest. Switzerland has added an official boycott. The Administration’s complete incompetence in foreign affairs has a price and U.S.-based businesses will be paying it; not just today.

Howell said Canada appeals to him for two reasons: its duty-free trade agreements with European countries and Japan, which account for the majority of global ski binding sales, and the quality of the Quebec subcontractors he has worked with.

The growing boycott of American products in countries such as Switzerland is another concern. Howell believes manufacturing in Quebec could make it easier for his company to earn customers’ trust.

“I think a lot of people might be holding out too much hope right now in the midterms,” he said. “I can’t bet my business on that.”

“I want to be with Carney, and I want to be where there’s a stable economy that I can rely on,” Howell said.

Estella Ren, The Toronto Star, September 4, 2026

It was that quote that pulled me out of my Canadian-centric view for a moment. We’ve been saying throughout this attack from the Trump Administration that trust has been broken. We’ve been saying that the midterms won’t fix it. Another democratic Administration won’t fix it because they’re always going to be one election away from putting another despot into power.

The politics of it were always questionable but as it turns out, politics has consequences in the real world.

Businesses rely on reputations that convey trust

A week and a half ago, I wrote about the saga of Good Good Golf, a group of influencers who went from making YouTube videos for fun to building partnerships with big names in the golf world. Unfortunately, through a series of poor decisions, they also torched their partnerships with Callaway, the Golf Channel, and the Professional Golfers’ Association (PGA). The CEO was removed this week.

Reputations, like trust, take a long time to build and only a moment to destroy.

They’ve taken generations of building a reputation and alliances and blown it up in less than 18 months. They’re not done, either— because they haven’t won anything.

Thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and becomes a free subscriber. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work; to those who have, your support is greatly appreciated!

Subscribe now

Read more

Contempt and kindness: Danielle Smith’s bizarre strategy

Last week, Danielle Smith offered a press conference to explain her strategy for dealing with the breakdown in negotiations between the U.S. and Canada.

“Basically, it means being more Canadian; too friendly, kind, and helpful to resist,” she said with a smile.

She added that she would not accept using oil and gas exports as leverage in negotiations with the U.S. in any way.

It was a good speech, if you’ve never had to listen to the contempt that is apparently only reserved for Canadians in Alberta who vote NDP, anyone who votes Liberal, and federal Liberals who are not as popular as Prime Minister Mark Carney.

Initially, I likened it to the fact that real problems are met with diplomacy and fake problems are met with backbone. I’ve seen nothing to change my mind since.

As if to drive the point home, she appeared on a few national news segments to claim that Ontario and Quebec should now understand what Alberta had to deal with under the Trudeau government.

Yes; in Danielle Smith’s world, the Trump Administration’s repeated and targeted attacks against the Canadian economy to force us to give up our sovereignty are the same as environmental regulations and carbon taxes— even though Alberta has had a large emitter tax on carbon since 2007.

Probably time for my semi-regular reminder of a short-lived introduction to the Danielle Smith show on QR770— “There’s two sides to every story; then there’s Danielle Smith’s.”— which always made me think “completely untethered to reality.”

Her speech also included a detailed list of ways the Trump Administration could apply more pressure to Canada— as one does. Then she headed down to Tennessee for a “personal trip” but also asked Nathan Cooper, Alberta’s former Speaker who was promoted to envoy in Washington, meet her there for government business reasons.

Apparently, she had a super important meeting with the CEO of Tourism Tennessee. Sure, Danielle; everyone totally believes that the same person who grabbed a public ticket to watch the president’s inauguration, spent a week and a half on the balls and cocktail circuit schmoozing Republican officials, headlined a maga conference and made a few appearances on their aligned media, flew down to meet a civil servant and the envoy to Washington a week after trade talks imploded. I kid. Of course not everyone believes that.

One political strategist I recently spoke with suggested that the meetings could either be a cover for a meeting with a more important US official that was cancelled at the request of Canada’s trade negotiators or a cover for a meeting with a more important US official that will happen (remember Smith’s surprise trip to Mar-a-Lago in January 2025?).

Dave Cournoyer, Danielle Smith heading to Music City U.S.A., August 31, 2026

Rachel Notley and Jason Kenney team up for team Canada

It’s not a match made in heaven; more like hell freezing over.

The two couldn’t even put out a new photo of them together, requiring every media outlet to use the most recent one on file; a photo from the NDP-UCP transition after the election in 2019.

Kenney said while the alliance once seemed “unlikely,” it is time for those of differing political stripes to come together ahead of the Oct. 19 referendum on whether the province should remain in Canada or hold a second, binding vote on independence.

“We both are proud Canadians — as are the vast majority of Albertans — and I think it’s past time that we all put aside partisanship and put patriotism first.”

CBC/Radio Canada— but I have to use a Bing link??

Yes, Mr. Kenney; when you spend three and a half years blaming the NDP for a recession that began the year before they were even in office, erasing their policies from existence, along with Ms. Notley who had more than her fair share of criticisms about his character and incompetence when he became leader of the UCP, and during COVID— while both doing their level best to convince voters that the other just wanted to inflict more pain on Albertans— saying an alliance would seem “unlikely” is comically understated.

I’d love to say our political culture doesn’t have to be in the literal bottom of the barrel but this unholy alliance is engulfed in so much hypocrisy that it’s almost preposterous.

It’s also not who Albertans want to hear from most and the scum-scraping politics seem to be getting in the way of hearing from some of them, too.

More than half say they “definitely” or “probably” trust former Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper (51%) and current Canadian prime minister Mark Carney (also 51%). The rating is lower for current federal Official Opposition leader Pierre Poilievre (47%), current provincial Official Opposition leader Naheed Nenshi (46%), former Alberta premier Rachel Notley (40%), current Alberta premier Danielle Smith (37%) and former Alberta premier Jason Kenney (32%).

Fewer than a third of likely voters in Alberta trust professional hockey player Connor McDavid (26%), leader of the federal New Democratic Party (NDP) Avi Lewis (20%), Progressive Tory Party of Alberta leader Peter Guthrie (17%), Wildrose Loyalty Coalition leader Paul Hinman (13%), Alberta Prosperity Project co-founder and lawyer Jeffrey Rath (also 13%), Alberta Prosperity Project CEO Mitch Sylvestre (also 13%), social media personality Marty Belanger (11%) or Republican Party of Alberta leader Cameron Davies (10%) on the issue of Alberta separating from Canada.

…

Alberta Prosperity Project co-founder and lawyer Jeffrey Rath (also 13%), Alberta Prosperity Project CEO Mitch Sylvestre (also 13%), social media personality Marty Belanger (11%) or Republican Party of Alberta leader Cameron Davies (10%) on the issue of Alberta separating from Canada.

Research Co., Fewer Than 1/4 of Voters in Alberta Side with Separation, August 31, 2026

Where is former Prime Minister Stephen Harper on the subject anyway?

All I could find was an anecdote where he claimed a “prominent” long-term separatist and he were chatting and when asked what he thought about what “President Trump’s doing”, Mr. Harper said, “I think we have to stick together.” To which the separatist supposedly replied with a lowered voice, “I think you’re right.”

That was seven months ago.

In another link— still looking specifically for Stephen Harper on Alberta separatism— I was offered an interview SUN columnist Brian Lilley gave to Bridge City News in Lethbridge. He said the former PM would be out all summer.

Thank goodness I found it afterwards and didn’t get my hopes up because I can’t find any evidence that it happened.

So… wtf?

Current leader of the Conservative Party of Canada Pierre Poilievre is also seen as more credible on the issue and what did he do? He threw the job to a CPC MP in Edmonton with zero name recognition who bears no political risk at all— in Edmonton— for saying Alberta should remain in Canada.

How bizarre…

Mr. Poilievre is currently facing attacks from the Trump Administration as his once-star candidate (a failed radio host who was roommates with the now Vice President) is jockeying for the leader’s job, and pretty much everyone agrees that Mr. Poilievre is unemployable outside of politics, so… can’t expect much from him, I guess.

Prime Minister Carney has taken a few turns at warning Albertans of the unintended repercussions of this type of referendum, while also doing what he can to meet Danielle Smith’s demands, which she claims can help subdue separatist sentiment. Except separatists want this promised $60 billion a year the Fraser Institute keeps saying belongs to them. So, weirdly, nothing the two are working towards is going to displace the Alberta utopia where separatists get to keep everyone else’s money.

The space we’re in, for some reason that will eternally escape me, is that If we can’t rely on Conservative leaders who should be able to stand up for Alberta’s place in Canada, at least we have two former premiers willing to follow the current one around trying to clean up the mess she’s making.

Sigh.

Pierre Poilievre à l’Orange

The Alberta NDP, in what I am praying is not actually a soft launch of their 2027 platform, released their oppo research disguised as part of their campaign for the Calgary-Shaw by-election. The party— who is on their third Communications Director since Naheed Nenshi became leader in 2024— seems to still be seeking that elusive sweet spot between messaging they actually like and strategic communications for a political party who even has a modicum of interest in forming government.

Then again, the party that does have great communications isn’t generating any buzz at all, so we should obviously just keep racing to the bottom rather than wondering how we managed to get to a point where Rachel Notley and Jason Kenney collaborating on an issue they both believe in would seem “unlikely.” Or “awkward.” Or “like a circus oddity.”

In any case, hoping that the other party implodes, or becomes so incredibly unpopular that people have to vote for someone else, isn’t a strategy that I’m particularly proud to recognize as having even the slightest chance of success, but there it is, and I do.

We can all wait until the government screws up that bad, right?

Facepalm.

Good news/bad news: Referendum ballots

All the poli-nerds were super excited to see their referendum ballots starting to arrive in their mail boxes this week. HURRAY!

Except… there’s a declaration one has to sign saying that they require a special ballot for a legitimate reason and threatens a fine and possible jail time if it’s not true.

People were reasoning it out.

“I’m not going to show up on October 19, therefore, it’s not untrue that I cannot vote that day, but is the fact that I don’t want to stand in line, or; that Elections Alberta was advertizing for us to request a special ballot to help the referendum go as smoothly as possible reason enough for me to sign that declaration swearing that I cannot vote on October 19?”

As it turned out, it shouldn’t have been included.

Declarations
Special ballot packages include a declaration that electors using this voting method are required to sign and return in their special ballot package. It contains a line “I declare that I am unable to vote at an advance voting place or a voting place on Election Day” that is causing concern and confusion for electors. We recognize this is carryover language from a previous version of the Election Act which required reasons to apply for a special ballot.

Electors may cross out the statement “I declare that I am unable to vote at an advance voting place or a voting place on Election Day” and complete the rest of the declaration, and Elections Alberta will accept it.

The declaration will be modified to remove that line for special ballots packages that have not yet been sent out.

Ballot folding
Several electors have expressed concerns about how to fold their ballots in their special ballot package. Elections Alberta will accept all ballots returned in completed special ballot packages, regardless of the way they are folded.

Elections Alberta, press releases, September 1, 2026

BUT ALSO!

Robson Fletcher released an interesting tool we can play with to judge whether it matters if we show up to vote in a referendum.

Recent polling shows that separatists have about 26 percent support but that can end up looking like far more if Albertans don’t show up. If only half of those who say they will vote to remain show up but all of the separatists do, the outcome could look as if they have far more support. Try it yourself.

That kind of an outcome would almost certainly give the separatist MLAs (and the separatists running to become candidates) in the UCP reason to hold the threat over our heads, and our economy, for years.

There is still time to apply for a special ballot to avoid the lines, however the deadline is September 25, 2026.

And feel free to visit Alberta’s Voice to see the fun projects they’ve been working on!

Final thoughts

Thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and becomes a free subscriber. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work; to those who have, your support is greatly appreciated!

Subscribe now

Share

The campaign for Calgary-Shaw’s by-election is… going on, I guess… and I don’t know why I thought this time might be different. I don’t know why I thought there was a possibility that the Alberta NDP might have something ready for a campaign we knew was coming for the last eight months. I don’t know why I thought they might run a different campaign than they have for the past three elections.

I live in a happy place of optimism about the future. I have hope and know that there’s a lot of potential because campaigns matter… and then they show up with a bag of dog poop.

A BIG BAG OF DOG POOP.

This morning, someone shared a link to the website WhoIsMikeDerry.ca. Frankly, it was something I’d expect to read posted anonymously on Reddit or shared in political group chats where we talk about political players and strategy. I didn’t even see that it was authorized by the NDP at first and assumed, with way too much good faith, that it was not “official communications”.

The litany of spelling and grammar mistakes make it feel like it was thrown together after 2 AM but does a lot of lifting to make it look like it shouldn’t have the “authorized by Alberta NDP” attached— and I think it would be beneficial if more people didn’t pick that up, to be honest.

If anything, it should have been an email to the most loyal supporters because the hyperbole is exhausting.

Electing the extreme Mike Derry sends the wrong message: that Smith’s hard right priorities are the right way to go.

Who are the UCP running?

UCP candidate Mike Derry wants you to believe he’s a mainstream Conservative. He is not.

Danielle Smith has allowed the extreme fringes to take over her party and Mike Derry and his puppet master, campaign manager Craig Chandler, are the most extreme of the extreme. Mike Derry is too extreme for Calgary.

I’m sorry— did they accidentally publish a draft where they were still workshopping when they should throw out the word “extreme” for emphasis? Because FIVE TIMES in four sentences is, at a minimum, FOUR TIMES TOO MANY, and defeats the purpose of using it at all.

You might wonder if this guy Mussolini reincarnate running to bring back the “fascist firing squad.”

No. Apparently he’s a regular old numpty sharing conspiracy theories online who bragged that he’s “heavily involved” in the UCP, helped draft nine of 50 resolutions at the last UCP convention, and he supports the policy the party adopted.

You know, like replacing the RCMP, ending fluoridation, not mandating vaccination, restricting women’s reproductive healthcare, and creating an Alberta Pension Plan.

Even with my personal bias in favour of not replacing the RCMP, keeping fluoridation in the water, the benefits of childhood vaccinations, remaining in the CPP, and not having to worry that the women in my life would be denied healthcare… these are debatable policies— and standard ones for UCP candidates at that.

The only people who would read this list and agree it’s “extreme” are people who have already convinced themselves that anything the UCP does is “extreme.”

And I have news for the campaign: in a province that would still hand the UCP government if a vote was held today THAT IS NOT YOUR AVERAGE VOTER.

… I say as I rub my eyes and drag my fingers down my face in frustration for the umpteenth time today.

Wut

With barely a month and a half to go before Danielle Smith’s separatist pandering referendum, it’s only marginally acceptable that they decided to talk about the actual candidate but in what world does the NDP think anyone gives a flying one about Craig Chandler?

Sure, my audience might remember him from being fired from Danielle Smith’s leadership campaign— four years ago— but do you know who doesn’t? THE VAST MAJORITY OF ALBERTANS.

There is no way anyone but the already initiated (and people who have to write about it) are reading through three pages of that website. At best, you might get some people who clutch their pearls over Mike Derry’s choice of campaign manager but at worst (and the most likely option) they won’t give a damn because HE’S NOT ON THE BALLOT.

I feel like I’ve just been subjected to a small opposition party aiming for a viral post that might achieve a single headline. Hey— that’s a goal for a party that is just trying to let people know it exists.

Except three pages on a website won’t go viral because it’s THREE PAGES ON A WEBSITE.

I honestly don’t get it.

How many times have I said that the “Alberta NDP is no longer the little party that could”? Why did I need to say it once, let alone reference it again?

I don’t let the UCP get away with taking advantage of the fact that they’re the only named “Conservative” option and I’m certainly not about to offer the NDP a pass just because they’re the only option for non-Conservative voters.

There is also a page for the Premier (who could be vulnerable to some well-thought out hits) but they manage to miss the mark by pointing the reader down south as if everyone has made the connection already.

Spoiler alert: they have not.

If this is a vote to send Danielle Smith a message, the NDP needs to go back and figure out what that message is because the UCP isn’t going to sit by and wait for someone to go through three pages and voters tuned out long before they read the seventh “extreme”.

No one cares who Mike Derry is and they aren’t voting for him anyway; they’re going to vote for the person with (UCP) by their name.

Most importantly, why are you talking about him or Craig freaking Chandler instead of telling them why they should vote NDP?

I…

I am a hyper-engaged individual who enjoys picking apart political strategy. I truly appreciate seeing political strategy in action and I like to look at it from the target audience’s perspective because I can not only see why it works for them but also how it appeals to a broader audience.

There is no broader audience for this website’s messaging; it’s just music for the choir to sing to— sing to the congregation of true believers.

The fact that it’s littered with spelling and grammar errors makes it look unprofessional and deeply unserious.

It looks like a campaign that is just trying to hang onto the supporters it already has in the hopes that with no other option, voters will eventually help them fumble their way back into government.

It’s the Pierre Poilievre strategy à l’Orange.

Unless they’re aiming for the same results, I’d suggest they pivot sooner.

Thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and becomes a free subscriber. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work; to those who have, your support is greatly appreciated!

Subscribe now

Share

This story has all of the great political narrative arcs; the event, escalation, brand, and even a nod to “cancel culture”.

Except this is different.

It’s not a “game” being played for likes and clicks on social media. In the real world, there are consequences for losing trust and failing to demonstrate good judgement. At least, in this real world story there is.

There’s also the suspense of wondering what will happen next. There is a redemption arc already written in my mind, or just the introduction to how it all ends. In this moment, both are possible. It’s a special space even after the horrible, no good, awful week for Good Good Golf.

The saga begins

At 8:36pm on August 19, GGG released a video online, tagging Callaway Golf. The ad was meant to announce a co-branded driver. It was a skit titled “The Driver”. The video was obviously meant to be a spoof but of what… was the first problem.

The short clip opened with a woman approaching a bag and reaching to pick a club. A guy then comes charging at her and tackles her to the ground. He stands over her menacingly and says “do not touch my driver” before turning and walking away. In the next scene, a different guy goes towards a bag and reaches for a club. The four people standing by are saying “no, man, don’t do it”. He looks back with his best Jack Nicholson circa the Shining impression and takes the club. No one tackles him. He misses a few shots, then hits one. Another guy says “that’s it; he’s gone.” The final scene has five of them, including the woman, with their own clubs hitting off a tee all at the same time.

It’s an enigma. Whatever they were aiming for either doesn’t resemble what they thought it did closely enough or it wasn’t as widely recognizable as they thought it was.

Anyone with eyes picked up on the overly aggressive nature of the opening scene. There’s nothing in the short video that explains any of this. The comments were overly negative from the start. The most curious were asking how the optics managed escaped every person who participated in writing it, acting in it, editing it, pitching it, and approving it.

I’m a woman who golfs. I am also a woman who owns a set of Callaway Solarires that I received on Mother’s Day in 2012. I hit a hole-in-one with my pitching wedge in 2024 and the last time we were out, I had the best front nine of my life with my trusty Big Bertha driver. I’m proud to carry their name and clubs with me.

Ever so briefly, I wondered if that would continue. That’s what the ad did to me personally. It made me question 14 years of being proud to see that name on my clubs; proud of accomplishments I’d had with them.

On a larger scale, golf was known as a “gentleman’s game”. Non-contact, plenty of etiquette, and respectful quiet while a player makes their shot. The Ladies Professional Golf Association has been working hard to build up their own organization, and the PGA has made promises to help them do the same.

That’s the environment that this video was made in.

It also stayed online for at least 41 hours. The comments were exactly like what you’d have expected; “domestic violence” was a big theme, “casual assault in a non-contact sport” was another. I said as much when I forwarded it around myself. It did not feel good, let alone good good. Still; it remained online.

I did a little research. Callaway partnered with GGG back in 2023.

“Callaway is proud to partner with Good Good Golf, and to collaborate with them as they continue to make the game more inviting, visible and entertaining for golfers of all ages and backgrounds,” said Callaway Golf VP of Global Marketing Nick McInally.

“Good Good has a proven track record of creating family-developed content that celebrates how golf creates friendships, memories and fun wherever it’s played, and we look forward to highlighting those stories with their team.”

Again, the ad was obviously a spoof… but it meant nothing to me. Whatever they were attempting to put together went right over too many people’s heads.

After finally deleting it in the afternoon of August 21, GGG released a brief statement saying “we posted a video to our channels that ultimately depicted actions that are not aligned with our values as a brand. We have since taken that content down and sincerely apologize. Good Good has always stood for making the game of golf more inclusive to all, and we will continue to ensure that is our mission moving forward.”

Although, it wasn’t “ultimately” was it? It was literally content that they wrote, directed, acted in, edited, posted to their channels, and someone watched the response and did nothing for at least 41 hours.

That was followed by an even briefer statement from Callaway. “We are disappointed by the content that was posted, and are appreciative of Good Good for addressing this. We look forward to working together to ensure a more inclusive space in golf.”

The internet was already geared up thanks to having almost two days to go at it. In what should have been equally telling from the replies they’d already seen, it was not going in the direction that the product partner, Callaway, would have appreciated.

Partners in time

On August 24, Chip Brewer, CEO of Callaway Golf, put out a more fulsome statement.

To our customer, employees, stakeholders and golfers everywhere;

Last week, Good Good Golf and Callaway posted a video to promote a co-branded driver. While the video was produced by Good Good, it was approved by Callaway prior to posting. That approval should never have happened. Mistakes were made, and we are taking the matter very seriously.

As we deal with the consequences of our mistake and complete our investigations, I want to make it clear that we sincerely apologize for the video. The content was inappropriate and does not reflect our values. To be clear: we are we are unequivocally against discrimination, domestic violence, or threatening behaviour of any kind.

As soon as we recognized the seriousness of the issues, it was escalated appropriately, and the video was immediately removed. Preliminary statements were issued by both Good Good and Callaway, and now this statement has followed. We are also conducting both internal and external investigations and have already made changes to our approval processes aimed at ensuring this will never happen again.

We believe we have been a positive force for diversity and inclusion in the game of golf. This video was completely inconsistent with that. I assure that we will learn from this and do better.

Humbly,

Chip Brewer— CEO, Callaway Golf

This was the moment that the trajectory of GGG and Callaway Golf were no longer in parallel. Admitting their share of responsibility (as opposed to the first statement), and the fact that the CEO had to be brought in, meant that Callaway Golf was no longer worried about preserving a partnership; they had moved into self-preservation mode.

It’s also important to note that it was a “partnership”. GGG was not employed by Callaway as a content producer; they were “partners”. The ad was supposed to launch a new product that carried both of their names.

GGG made an editorial/artistic decision and they stood by it for almost two full days while the waves of negativity came crashing down upon them. That was their decision. Except… they weren’t really doing it alone. It was a “partnership”. A rising tide just doesn’t float all boats, it can sink them, too.

While I often think internet trolls should be given far less credibility than they are, generally speaking, by the time Callaway Golf’s CEO had to get involved, the damage had already escaped containment.

How trickle-down economics actually works

GGG hadn’t just made an editorial/artistic decision to accept the negativity that ensued for almost two full days, they made a business decision for their own brand.

I have to say it out loud because, as it turns out, the founder/CEO of GGG hasn’t made that connection yet, despite what continued to happen over the following week.

GGG was set to be part of a reboot on Golf Channel called Big Break x Good Good. The Golf Channel didn’t name names but in a short note on August 25, stated that “a sponsor” wanted their name removed from the show, which caused the Golf Channel to delay the premiere.

GOLF CHANNEL PROGRAMMING NOTE

Golf channel is postponing tonight’s premiere of Big Break x Good Good to next Tuesday, September 1. This will allow for necessary production updates following a request from one of the show’s sponsors to remove its branding from the series.

In a post by Channel staff, they added “Big Break’s postponement comes four days after Good Good, the YouTube golf brand that partnered with Golf Channel on this Big Break reboot and has several of its members featured in the show, released an objectionable video promoting a new Callaway driver.”

Notice again, the word “partnered”.

And that driver they were going to release? Competitors saw a pretty blatant opportunity. Parsons Xtreme Golf launched a short ad days later with LPGA Tour player Olivia Cowan, captioned “Our drivers play nice with everyone.”

It’s one thing to say “of course we don’t agree with assaulting women” but the GGG ad made it easy to compete with by doing something as simple as saying their “drivers play nice with everyone” and promoting women’s golf. Or, the LPGA generally.

A couple of days later, on August 27, a third, and final statement came from Callaway Golf. By this time, the end of the partnership was more than expected but they really drove the message home with devastating clarity.

Over the last several days, we have listened and reflected deeply on the hurt and disappointment caused by the video we reposted. We heard from individuals who shared personal experiences related to violence against women, and their stories were powerful reminders that this issue touches the lives of far too many people. Violence against women is unacceptable and should never be trivialized, normalized or used as entertainment.

We have now completed our review of this matter and are taking the following actions:

• Callaway has ended its relationship with Good Good, effective immediately

• In this instance, our content review process was not comprehensive enough. We have taken appropriate internal corrective actions and significantly strengthened our approval processes to ensure this does not happen again.

• We are committing $1 million to support organizations working to prevent violence against women, provide resources to survivors, and advance education and awareness efforts.

These actions do not undo the harm caused or excuse our role in it. We sincerely apologize to everyone who was hurt, disappointed, or offended by this incident.

One of Callaway Golf’s core values is to be a positive influence, both in the game of golf and in our communities. We are further strengthening our commitment to these initiatives, and this will be an ongoing focus of our company. We are committed to learning from this incident and helping ensure that golf is a place where everyone feels respected, valued, and welcome.

That was just the beginning.

The Golf Channel decided to cancel the reboot of Big Break entirely.

Remember that earlier part about the PGA working to promote their similarly-named professional organization? Well, the PGA has long proven that it isn’t hurting for sponsors and they have the ability to pick and choose who they will partner with.

By the end of business day, the PGA issued their own statement about an upcoming tournament that fall, framing their response as accepting GGG’s decision to step away.

GGG’s own response suggests it wasn’t really an option.

After thoughtful discussions with the PGA Tour and careful reflection, we have decided to step away as sponsor of the tour event in Austin this fall.

We recognize that we have work to do as an organization, and our focus right now is on our team, our culture, and ensuring we learn from this situation.

We are grateful for our relationship with the PGA Tour and appreciate their partnership over the years. We remain committed to earning back trust, and we hope to work together again the future.

Now. You might think that has to be the end of it… but no.

The victim

The thought was in my head all week: cancel culture; the battle cry of losers who think others owe them something.

As I dug further into the many partnerships GGG had built, I was kind of rooting for them not to go there. All is not lost— they haven’t entirely gone over to the dark side yet, but they are on the precipice of a point of no return.

From a political communications standpoint, none of the responses from GGG seemed comfortable with accepting that they made a poor decision; they avoided acknowledging that their decision affected anyone else. They didn’t act like a “partner”.

And then it happened: the founder and CEO of Good Good Golf returned to X after not posting for 11 years; to blame someone else.

The anti-cancel culture baes and bros were waiting for him; ready to defend the ad and the choices GGG made for their business.

The sad reality is that losers are constantly looking for a new hero to look up to because their heroes… are… losers. Every freaking time.

I’ll say that Mr. Kendrick is so far not entirely embracing his new status on X. He’s being somewhat cautious in the responses I’ve seen— simple thank you’s for messages of support— but the environment is egging him on to burn everything down and he could easily take that step into the abyss.

It is possible that Mr. Kendrick isn’t lying. He could be friends with the person who approved the ad at Callaway. Maybe that person asked him to take the fall because they hadn’t even looked at it. Having been a partner with GGG for three years, maybe they approved it without looking because they trusted that the content would be completely fine— because it usually was. Or maybe the approvals person completely got the spoof and didn’t consider how it might land otherwise.

Any of that could be true, and it might have maybe it even mattered— right up until the moment that the CEO had to issue a statement no CEO of a billion-dollar brand ever wants to have to put their name to.

From that moment, Callaway was going to defend their brand, their sponsorships, and their other partners— because that’s what good partners do.

When GGG tagged their partner, saw that it was going down the proverbial toilet and failed to recognize the risk to their own brand— let alone their partner’s— but also failed to protect the brands from that risk, GGG failed to act like a partner.

That’s the decision GGG is facing repercussions for— they didn’t act like a partner, they acted like an employee; and employees are replaceable.

I can see the space they’re in right now though, politically speaking.

In this moment, their future has two possibilities; taking the easy way out and becoming king of the losers on X, or beginning the hard work of rebuilding trust. Of truly understanding how their actions had the potential to hurt someone else, acknowledging that, and working to become a better partner in the future.

Despite the many wrong turns, I’m rooting for them to choose to do the work. I’m hoping they figure out where they went wrong and decide to do better. It would mean a lot.

Thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and becomes a free subscriber. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work; to those who have, your support is greatly appreciated!

Subscribe now

Share

This week has been a lot and for the first time in far too long, most of it happened outside of the province. It was kind of a nice break from our gaslighting Premier, even if it did come with some unfortunate escalations.

Au revoir, Nutlick

The first time I heard Howard Lutnick’s name mispronounced like that, it took me at least ten minutes to remember what his actual name was. A Canadian reporter accidentally said it at a Doug Ford presser (but she caught herself immediately) in a clip that of course went viral. Turns out, the guys from the Bulwark took credit saying “Nutlick has arrived in Canada”. Just some background.

Trade negotiations failed at the eleventh hour last week, with Prime Minister Mark Carney recalling the Canadian negotiators back home. In the days since, clarity has followed on some of the items that caused it, with a lot of fingers pointing at Trump sycophant Lutnick. If not for the latter’s truly ignoble attempts Thursday to embed himself in the former’s rectal cavity, I would have thought the president himself sent Lutnick into the room to do exactly that. However, Lutnick’s performance was so debasing, so utterly devoid of any dignity, that I think someone got yelled at— a lot.

And speaking of being yelled at, Premier Doug Ford initially came out swinging and told the President to “kiss my ass” during a radio interview. He toned it down as the day went on.

Prime Minister Carney spoke directly to Canadians on Saturday, and the federal government imposed targeted 50 per cent tariffs on a few hundred imports as of Monday.

Two of the demands that crossed the line appear to have been getting rid of the requirement for labeling in both official languages, and that Canada require approval from the U.S. Administration on trade deals… with other countries.

According to polling, a clear majority of Canadians were behind the decision even before they knew the details, but after… even some of the most ardent Alberta separatists were shaken out of their walking daydreams and into the harsh reality of a very real threat to Canada that would probably extend to a fledgling province that wants to “go its own way” in this political economy.

The thing that bothered me most about this one person’s comment is that I have met them, talked at length with them, and even though I know them as a bit of a rabblerouser, they are not intellectually deficient; but they are unapologetically partisan. This person was shocked that the U.S. Administration would have sought to undermine Canadian sovereignty in this way. It’s scary to think that an otherwise intelligent person hasn’t noticed what’s been happening over the past 18 months. Donald Trump is not partisan problem— he’s legitimately just a problem.

On the positive side, something finally broke through the self-imposed bubble. My hope is that it won’t be the last.

Trump was hugely unimpressed with Premier Ford’s response and decided to sign an Executive Order to relive the glory days of his first few weeks as 47 when he “renamed” the Gulf of Mexico; by demanding everyone now call Lake Ontario “Lake America”.

Hydronyms. Such a brilliant smackdown. If you’re a person who ever had to educated-guess your way through a bio-chem final (cough) by picking out root words, you already know that -nym is name, and hydro is water. If you were a person in the Washington D.C. area, you googled it more than people in any other state. Snicker.

While much fun was had online, it’s a reminder that the blob of cholesterol and poor self esteem in the oval office is unpredictable, unreasonable, and unfriendly. It’s also not likely to change overmuch with a new administration.

Citizens of the U.S. are not happy with the current direction of the administration, it’s true, but being “better than” the morally and intellectually defunct group they have now is by no means indicative of a return to the higher standard that once existed; the bar is legitimately under their feet right now.

The United States didn’t become a superpower over a single term, nor was it the work of a single party, let alone person. The U.S. built its reputation and influence up over many generations. You know what they say about trust— it takes a lifetime to build and only a moment to lose.

Canada had its pivotal election in 2025. It was the election that required a change from the status quo. Some might be quick to say “but the Liberals aren’t a change from the status quo!” If all they can see is the banner, then maybe nothing did change for them. My take on it has always been that if 2025 had been a regular old election requiring nothing but that new banner, Pierre Poilievre would have won in a landslide. The only reason he didn’t is because Trump turned our closest ally and trading partner into a threat that a bare majority of Canadians took seriously at the time. Slowly, a greater majority of Canadians have realized the same.

I don’t know if citizens of the U.S. fully comprehend what it will take to fix what Trump has done. I’m not sure the next person who wants to run for the presidency will either. Pierre Poilievre still doesn’t comprehend why he lost. His team doesn’t comprehend why he lost. Two thirds of his own support doesn’t comprehend why he lost (updated from a mistaken “third”).

I’m just saying; there’s no guarantee that anything will change in the U.S. anytime soon. Not with midterms, not with the next election, and maybe not even in the next generation. The U.S. didn’t build itself up in a single generation the first time. They won’t even be starting at the beginning— they’ll be starting from a place of mistrust. And that’s much harder to overcome than a simple reset.

I feel awful leaving that so dark so here’s a little silver lining: as the person who will probably become known as the absolute worst president in the history of the United States, the Trump name— something he desperately wanted to build a legacy for— will carry little more than shame with it after he’s gone.

We can rename stuff too, you demented fool

I’m also not opposed to “25th A Avenue”, just for the record. The fact that not everyone will get the slight is actually the point. Hopefully, some day, we will no longer think of that pompous turd and it would be unfortunate to rename a street in our amazing country in anger. I wrote to Mr. Tierney and suggested that in addition to some of the amazing options, they consider naming it after the 25th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which can be used to remove a sitting president. Watergate was enough to invoke the 25th to remove Nixon— which now seems incredibly quaint in comparison, but is a reminder that Republicans once cared about their reputation.

The disaster that is the B.C. Conservative Party (with some Poilievre and Alberta thrown into the clown show)

Why is the implosion of the B.C. Conservative party related in any way to Pierre Poilievre, or Alberta? It wouldn’t be if he’d kept his mouth shut and the worst of Alberta conservatism is just trying to get their hands on everything right now. Ready?

The short version is: after almost forming government in 2024, it all started to fall apart. Three caucus members left to form their own “principled” (see: really racist) party, staffers were fired for racist remarks, party leader John Rustad stepped down, the party had a leadership race, and the winner of that, praised by Poilievre for beating the “Liberal lobbyists from out east”, has lost six caucus members in 12 days.

Kerry-Lynne Findlay eked out a win in a very close race against contender Caroline Elliott (who doesn’t appear to be a complete nutbar) for the B.C. Conservative leadership. Ms. Elliott’s campaign team for her leadership bid consisted of some Ontario-area Conservatives, some who were on Mr. Poilievre’s leadership campaign, and in his corner during the 2025 general election, as well as some who have been as critical as I (and those who have been infinitely more savage). At Stampede, Mr. Poilievre made a flippant remark welcoming Ms. Findlay to the (literal) Conservative tent by denigrating fellow conservatives who had helped out on Ms. Elliott’s campaign team, calling them “Liberal lobbyists from out east”.

Fast forward to today and the BCCP is literally being torn apart.

Within the past 12 days, the B.C. Conservative party has lost 6 MLAs. Former (very blue) B.C. Liberal leader Christy Clark is encouraging more to find the door. Their month and a half-tenured Caucus Operations lead, Apollo Chung (who was directly tied to out-of-province donations to the Alberta Republicans, and yes, the same party that sold Alberta’s voter data) was allegedly recorded claiming that the purpose of forming government was to basically steal from the Treasury (sounds… eerily familiar) and was fired.

Now, Ms. Clark was a very blue Liberal. The entire BC Liberal party was basically a PC party that Conservatives could hide behind because they couldn’t get elected in the province. In 2024, former BCCP leader John Rustad proved that was no longer the case, after many shenanigans with party names leading up to that election.

The absolute worst people are running for office. And they can win; just ask Premier Danielle “cause a national unity crisis” Smith.

Wakey, wakey.

Final thoughts

Thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and becomes a free subscriber. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work; to those who have, your support is greatly appreciated!

Subscribe now

Share

Since the return of the Trump Administration in 2025, Canadians have been forced into an uncomfortable position. Where our governments have played complimentary roles in the past, the U.S. Administration chose to make us an adversary instead. Not that we’re special in that regard— they’ve chosen to make enemies of every ally they had— but it did hit us harder.

We don’t just share a border with the U.S., we share a history that predates the border itself. I’m not going to say that we did it better, but when those in the U.S. pushed Canada before, it wasn’t just the British and the French who defended our border, it was Indigenous Peoples as well. That is, at least, a point of pride in a history our Canadian ancestors were part of, together.

When talks broke down between Canada and the U.S. on trade last week, there were two responses; one of blame and one of resolve.

Our shared history has always shaped how we respond when the U.S. pushes us and this moment is no different.

Changing winds

The Trump Administration is a strange thing. Somehow, it is made up entirely of people who think respect can be commanded without being earned, and expected without being offered.

I’d never given much thought to the role Canada played with the U.S. until the RCMP detained Meng Wanzhou in Vancouver in 2018, after an arrest warrant was issued for her in New York that August. The U.S. and Canada have long shared agreements in law enforcement but this one was on the level of international incident.

In retrospect, Canada likely did the right thing (for international diplomacy) by not extraditing the Chinese national to the U.S. but the action itself was not without consequences.

It also wasn’t the first time Canada put its own reputation on the line for our friends and allies in the U.S.. Even if I didn’t include the many Canadians who fought overseas, many of us likely discovered through Hollywood that Canadian diplomats were integral to assisting U.S. diplomats out of Tehran during the 1979 hostage crisis, as seen on the big screen in the movie “Argo”. I would like to think Canadian diplomats would have assisted diplomats of any nationality during a similar event but it’s entirely possible that it was “personal”. Canada and the U.S. has long had a fairly good relationship, and (I hope) more than just me can trace an ancestor who crossed the border into Canada but doesn’t seem to exist in any records before they did.

Despite our shared history, that relationship didn’t always exist.

The War of 1812 fended off U.S. expansionism into Canada. The War of Independence in the U.S. saw the 49th parallel act as the proverbial “line in the sand” by welcoming those who remained loyal to the British Empire. As Foreign Affairs Minister Melanie Joly said early Tuesday, that motivation of not wanting to be part of the U.S. is in Canada’s DNA; it was the catalyst.

With that being said, that institutional memory is longer— and more readily acknowledged— in eastern Canada.

It seemed like a good idea at the time

Albertans who haven’t internalized every U.S.-centric depiction of law and politics were astounded by Danielle Smith’s 2022 admission that she thought she would have the same powers as Premier that a U.S. state Governor enjoyed. It was just one of many red flags that preceded her visit to Mar-a-Lago in 2024, and attendance at the inauguration ceremony and subsequent republican celebrations in 2025.

While I don’t have any sympathy for what I regularly suspect are the Premier’s divided loyalties, I had my own deeply embarrassing moment recently that caused me great discomfort and reminded me that some misconceptions are handed down to us.

Read more

“Conservative” is one of the oldest brands in Canadian politics— and the Westminster Parliamentary system— and we’re watching zealots destroy it in real time. While I know there are those who would celebrate its demise, I don’t think it’s necessarily going anywhere; it’s just going to be horrible when they finally manage to get themselves into the seat of government— like the Wildrose in their UCP masks.

What we’re watching isn’t just ideological drift; it’s grievance politics overwhelming governance politics inside a party that once understood the difference.

Not that long ago, I offered the foundation of a political theory: governance and grievance politics. While the two can be used to describe individuals of any political lean, it was borne out of watching conservative parties in Alberta and beyond. Unfortunately, we now have B.C. conservatives offering themselves up as yet another walking disaster of a test case.

The destruction of the conservative brand isn’t just an Alberta problem— it’s a national one that is spreading— because grievance politics travels faster than governance politics can contain it.

Governance politics is the discipline required to win; grievance politics is the performance required to remain angry.

Alberta is very, consistently, and frustratingly familiar with grievance politics. There is another side to that, however, and it’s governance politics— or what we more commonly refer to as “moderates”. They’re not the same, however. Few people would consider Stephen Harper a “moderate” in its common definition, and that’s why we needed to find another way to explain the difference.

When people use the term “moderate” in politics, it gives the impression that their “lean” or values are tempered. “Progressive conservative” would be a good example. Those who easily managed to hold both “conservative” and “progressive” views— especially after the demolition of those similarly-named parties— became “moderates” in comparison to the “burn everything down” types, even if they weren’t at all “moderate”. Additionally, we have the Overton window that changes what “moderate” actually looks like in a given time and space.

Moderates are defined by temperament; governance politics is defined by purpose.

Governance politics avoids the pitfalls of the term ‘moderates’ because it describes intent and purpose, not ideology or personality.

While governance politics focuses on process and ascending to the instrument of government— actually finding solutions for problems— grievance politics begins and ends with the expression of itself. Grievance politics thrives in opposition because it requires no solutions; only— as Kory Teneycke so eloquently put it— “running your mouth”.

I’m not saying “moderates” don’t actually exist, mind you. I’m simply saying that governance politics is a better definition of those who are not at all moderate but are more interested in forming government than alienating their own supporters to maintain the dopamine boost they get from airing their own grievances.

In Alberta today, the separatist movement is the purest expression of grievance politics— and the clearest example of how governance politics attempts to subdue grievance for electoral viability.

A socio-political case study in grievance and governance politics

The foundation of the separatist movement in Alberta is multi-generational grievance. I’d argue that it began before we even became a province. Those who were sent to settle the west faced harsh conditions and were tasked with building what already existed in the east in service of a monarch and a plan that probably seemed very, very far away at the time. Instead of pride— though there is an abundance of that as well— bitterness became embedded in the culture that grew from it.

Alberta’s political culture was built on extraction— of land, labour, and resources— and extraction cultures can produce grievance in response to times when the perceived flow of benefits changes, as it has during the boom-bust cycle of oil.

The feeling of being cut off from the east remains; though not as strongly as it did before technology was able to bridge that gap. With that being said, technology itself plays an outsized role in grievance politics. Social media has afforded us not just the ability to keep tabs on politicians in real time but to demand a constant diet of that which sustains our use. It also consists of a feedback loop that makes certain groups feel much bigger, and more supported, than they are.

The separatist movement in Alberta has had many faces but more recently, it was led by individuals chasing their five minutes of fame like Dennis Modry, Jeffrey Rath, and Mitch Sylvestre. People who were big fish in the small pond of dedicated separatists whose entire identity is grievance politics that had a single common enemy: Liberal governments.

These individuals, as well as the ones that Preston Manning is chasing for his virtual townhalls, just want people to listen to them complain about how their lot in life was made worse by a federal government whose policies rarely, if ever, actually affected them. That is not to say that federal policy has never directly affected people living in Alberta; I’m saying it never directly affected them.

Dennis Modry, a former surgeon, is rooted in professional displacement due to healthcare cuts; Mitch Sylvestre’s in personal resentment over provincial pandemic restrictions; and Jeffrey Rath in an anti-institutional identity.

These three are the typical purveyors of grievance politics in its simplest form: intensely local resentments projected onto a physically, and politically, distant villain.

Enter Keith Wilson and Cory Morgan. They have grievances— a lot of grievances— but they are governance politics types who are not just interested in their own complaints, they want to win. Essentially, they’re doing more work to launder the accumulated grievances of a province rather than eliminate them.

Hence, the change from “separation or bust” to “just send Ottawa a message; a message never hurt anyone did it?”

Wait until they hear where the phrase “don’t shoot the messenger” came from.

The grievances still exist in their original form, just like Stephen Harper’s did; the difference is that they want to win and are willing to temper those aspects of their intentions that are not at all popular with the general public.

Just like how Danielle Smith is able to force a separation referendum on Albertans without campaigning on doing so; she knew that she needed to appear like someone who would take governing the province seriously while playing down her desire to take a wrecking ball to it. And it worked.

Before anyone gets too excited, Rachel Notley did the same thing. For her entire life, the NDP was in opposition. When they realized they had a shot at winning the election in 2015, the NDP removed items from their platform that could have caused them issues with the general public.

However, Danielle Smith tempered grievances to win power, as evidenced by the resurgence of petty grievances she once claimed were for “likes and clicks”, and Rachel Notley tempered an ideological rigidity that is favourable in opposition to win government, and governed like someone willing to take on that responsibility for all Albertans, as evidenced by how quickly the party could pivot when they were wrong.

There’s obviously a difference between running to remain opposition and running to form government, too, of course, but the shift— knowing that the two positions require a different tactic— is why Rachel Notley managed to form government and voters didn’t run back to the PC’s at the last second like they did to Danielle Smith in 2012.

That shift gave Stephen Harper the ability to become Prime Minister and Pierre Poilievre’s inability to do so is why he couldn’t manage the same.

After his time as Prime Minister, Stephen Harper once said that he believed populism is true conservatism. Tommy Douglas and Rachel Notley would disagree. So would Justin Trudeau for that matter.

What Mr. Harper had that allowed him to achieve two minority governments and then a majority was governance politics. He lost in 2015 because he let the foundation of his own politics— grievance— take over.

Canadians didn’t change; Mr. Harper stopped governing and started performing grievance again.

It’s already on the national stage

What began decades ago as a grievance-based movement in Alberta reached the national stage first with Reform and then Stephen Harper. Its spirit lives on Pierre Poilievre, and is offering us a front row seat for the next performance in the B.C. Conservative Party. Grievance politics is now overwhelming governance politics inside of a political brand that once knew the difference.

Conservativism, likely since the party’s formation, may have had at its heart a preference for grievance politics but they relied on governance politics— with the strength of discipline and a desire to govern well once they achieved it— to win. Aspects of the brand which seem to have been left behind in the quest to gain power.

What we’re seeing now, especially under Pierre Poilievre’s leadership, is that grievance politics is impatient. Just look back to Rachel Notley in opposition— she never lost her air of competency; never reverted back to an opposition leader who only wanted to play in the mud of grievance. She had discipline, and a desire to govern well that she held onto with ease because her goal went beyond airing grievances. She had, as former Stephen Harper advisor Ken Boessenkool once said, “a conservative disposition.”

The conservative brand is in danger of collapsing because it is losing itself in grievance politics. It’s becoming their entire identity. And once grievance politics becomes the identity of the party, people who want conservative government— those who believe in and work for and build up conservative movements— will leave. Just like Stephen Harper left a completely safe Reform seat in Calgary in 1997.

That is the crisis facing conservatives today: a political brand that once relied on discipline now rewards performance. A movement that once sought power now seeks to lick its wounds and heckle from the sidelines. A party that once governed the country now struggles to govern itself.

The conservative brand is mutating into something that can win opposition, but not government. And unless governance politics reasserts itself, the brand will continue to be defined not by what conservatism is, but by what it once was.

Thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and becomes a free subscriber. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work; to those who have, your support is greatly appreciated!

Subscribe now

Share

Elections Alberta struggling to hire staff for Danielle Smith’s separation referendum

Elections Alberta (EA)— an apparent punching bag for Danielle Smith and the UCP of late— tried to soften the blow of asking for workers from other provinces to help count the grotesque number of ballots the Premier is throwing at us for her upcoming separatist-friendly referendum.

EA said they were just looking to bring in more experienced election workers but they’ve only managed to hire 24,000 Albertans so far— a third of what they’ve said they will need to count as many as 20 million ballots within the 48-hour timeline the Premier ordered.

Voting will take place in a 12-hour period on October 19, with Albertans filling out 10 separate ballots. Each.

Remember; special ballots are available so you too can avoid having to wait in line as elections staff provide instructions to voters over, and over, and over, and over, and over, and over… and over again. That line is going to move more slowly than a queue at the bank on payday in the 1990’s.

I do have to wonder why job postings in a province with the third-highest unemployment rate in Canada are going unanswered.

Alberta’s labour market has been sputtering for years, and somehow the government that brands itself as “the party that can manage the economy” hasn’t managed to reverse the trend.

Also, no offence to New Brunswick, but how are we on par with them? How does Alberta have a higher unemployment rate than half the maritime provinces?

I know the UCP would never bother bringing it up but surely there’s a political party willing to talk about it during a by-election at least…

Calgary-Shaw by-election called for September 14, 2026

Ah. I remember when Rebecca Schulz gave her Dear Dani letter to the UCP back in December so that she wouldn’t have to play a part in “working with the feds if they’re Liberals”. Of course, she didn’t forego collecting her government cheque. That’s the benefit of being an elected official in a governing party that doesn’t care about wasting public dollars— they’re more than happy to keep paying their friends.

Mike Derry defeated Ward 13 Calgary City Council Dan McLean for the UCP nomination. “Elected official” isn’t supposed to be a stepping stone to more lucrative elected roles, people— if you don’t want to do the job you get, don’t run; you’re giving us whiplash.

Kyle Campbell has the NDP nomination and Liberal leader John Roggeveen are challenging. No word yet on whether the guy who sold our voter information to multiple buyers, Republican Party leader Cam Davies, will be running (we know B.C. conservatives really want his party to do something in the province for some reason), or who will be the Alberta Tory party candidate.

It is a by-election, so be sure to send a few dollars towards the candidate (or candidates) you want to help put up a fight.

Healthcare scares

As I pointed out back in June, tying our Personal Health Numbers to driver’s licence/government ID meant that our healthcare coverage suddenly has the opportunity to “expire”. The UCP stated quite matter-of-fact-ly that we might be responsible for paying for health services— that are fully covered under the Canada Health Act— if we let our government-issued ID expire.

I know they can’t get away with that but not everyone who may get a bill from the government does.

Some people might pay that bill and the UCP can’t be trusted to admit the error was a violation of the Canada Public Health Act. They’re looking for ways to make Albertans pay for their services without being the big mean adult in the room who says “dude; you’re not special— public services cost money,” but they’re no Ralph Klein coming in with a plan. At least, not one they want to be up front with Albertans with.

With that being said, there are other problems we can point to today.

An Alberta family is suing the UCP government for $200,000 (plus legal fees, I imagine). They took their daughter to a surgeon in New Jersey after being told their daughter was too old to get the surgery she was waitlisted for in Alberta. It cost them just shy of $200,000. Alberta Health is refusing to pay the out-of-province access fees, and their appeal was denied.

This seems like a pretty textbook case of provincial health mismanagement. First, aging out of a waitlist seems like a pretty obvious problem with the waitlist process, which the UCP is responsible for (because they’re the ones who wanted the job). Second, according to the family’s lawyer, it’s not that surgery cannot be done— it’s that it cannot be done in Alberta, or Canada, because no surgeons currently have the skills to perform it.

There’s some logical friction between the family’s appeal being denied on the basis that she could have kept waiting.

Either the surgery was unavailable in Canada and the family had to seek care elsewhere, or the surgery was available in Canada and their daughter did not “age out”. Both of those things cannot be true.

In any case, the waitlist is a provincial management problem to solve. Moving surgeons from the public system to the private system (as the UCP has mandated with Bill 11) isn’t adding more surgical capacity— it’s just moving the same surgeons to a different building.

Today, we have the ability to access services and specialists in other provinces but what happens if the separatists win the referendum and every specialist not living in Alberta is “out of country” for the next family?

Seriously; that’s not a hypothetical in a separate Alberta— it’s a real-world consequence.

Who asked the feds to step in, anyway?

Danielle Smith has long been a fan of two-tiered healthcare; it’s as if she fundamentally understands the value of paying for things, but only if fewer people can benefit. While I fully believe she is breaking up Alberta’s healthcare system to sell it off for parts, I have nothing specific to point at other than what she’s doing would make that outcome easier.

At this point, she’s not running afoul of Canada’s Public Health Act. Private ownership of clinics who bill the province for their services is allowed. It’s the same set up that Quebec has.

My personal opinion on privatizing service delivery is that governing parties do it so they can say “hey, that wasn’t us! It was that awful company who promised to deliver top-tier services for bottom of the barrel rates and we totally don’t understand how it didn’t work out!”

I can only point to the DynaLife labs privatization failure, and the company the UCP contracted to leave vulnerable patients in Edmonton motels (who they didn’t bother paying), and Alberta Surgery Group’s sweetheart contract— the publicization of which forced the UCP to double the AHS rate cap on the surgeries they were performing so as not to look like they were in on the AHS scam— but other than that, I have nothing.

Point being, I don’t think the federal government needed to offer themselves up as a sacrifice for Danielle Smith and the UCP ahead of a referendum that is focused on keeping the feds in their own lane, but also permitting the provincial government to start veering out of theirs. I know that certain people (*cough* Edmonton-Strathcona MP Heather McPherson, AFL president Gil McGowan) have asked the federal government to intervene but to what end?

In this moment, the UCP is not running afoul of the Public Health Act; Ottawa can’t intervene when the law is not being broken.

If anything, federal interest only gives the Premier a soap box to “fight Ottawa”— and that doesn’t help us, in this moment, if at all.

A final wtaf

Danielle Smith told UCP supporters at a Lethbridge town hall that a binding separation referendum could be held as early as the spring of 2027 if Albertans vote for option B on her separatist referendum.

The Premier said that she was basing it on the major projects office timeline to get approval for TMX 2.0.

According to Smith, it would take "at least" two and a half months to fulfill their consultation requirements, and then she would need the federal government to approve the referendum question and ensure it complies with the Clarity Act.

"I'm looking at what Dawn Farrell is doing right now with the major projects legislation," Smith said.

She said she needed two and a half months to do what she felt was appropriate consultation on that pipeline, so that it would withstand any court challenge.

Western Standard, August 19, 2026

Because, obviously, a pipeline approval is the same as leaving Canada. Why wouldn’t you wrap up “consultation” on the future of your citizenship in two and a half months? It legitimately takes more time to get a temporary work visa approved— and that’s not even permanent.

This is just one of the reasons why I cannot fathom how anyone could possibly believe this woman isn’t a separatist; no one who cares about their country is that cavalier about giving up their citizenship.

EVEN THE PARTI QUEBECOIS ISN’T THAT CAVALIER.

PQ leader Paul St-Pierre Plamondon announced Tuesday that if elected, they will not hold a referendum until Donald Trump is out of office.

The separatist party.

In all fairness, Quebeckers demand a minimum standard of consideration from their government or they will be voted out. They aren’t pawns for anyone.

Vive le Canada!

Final final thoughts

There’s a petition to declare Pete Hoekstra “persona non grata”. Feel free to add your thumbs up.

Thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and becomes a free subscriber. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work; to those who have, your support is greatly appreciated!

Subscribe now

Share

When I think of conservative voters, I don’t picture separatists. I mean, I can, but they’re a subset of Conservative voters who are unreachable by anyone who doesn’t agree with whatever nonsense they believe. It’s why the people who are trying to be the voices for the movement now are also busy trying to shove those that made the first impression into the background.

The headlining question made me think of the strategy being employed by the separatist movement; in particular, how they are adjusting their strategy ahead of Danielle Smith’s separatist referendum.

Fresh off some of the criticism I responded to in my last post, this is where the big feelings need to be left at the door; I’m not endorsing the movement or equating it with non-conservative parties. I’m simply putting on my analyst hat and looking at the political strategy; what they did, what they’re pivoting to, and how that ties into the headlining question from another reader.

To answer whether anyone can break through the ‘Conservative or die’ mentality, all we need to do is look at a group that actually is set up to break through an identity barrier; separatists.

Thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and becomes a free subscriber. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work; to those who have, your support is greatly appreciated!

Subscribe now

Read more

A brief back-and-forth over social media with someone last week got me thinking— in fact, it almost made me change my mind about what I do here. Almost. I don’t just ask other people to think— I am more than willing to do it myself.

The initial comment was, “Love the critique of the UCP, keep waiting for acknowledgement of the strengths of the NDP.”

I tried to explain why I don’t support political parties, but it didn’t really take. They continued with very good points:

The NDP has a history in governing Alberta, brief but a history, and many of the same MLAs as in 2015-19, there is a coherent and consistent response to what the UCP is doing, it isn't just a group of individuals, going right back to the 1960s.

The Alberta NDP isn't some conservative rag tag off shoot formed 5 years ago, its roots go back to the 1930s and what it stands for is pretty much what it has stood for from the start.

It’s a shame you haven’t been given the time of day. I don't know what didn't grab you, the personalities of the MLAs? What they were most committed to? Most of them didn't cut and run after losing after one term, they have stuck around in opposition. And what a hellish, toxic workplace that is, being in Opposition to the UCP government, yet they continue to fight for us, Albertans, against all the corruption and damage to health care and everything else. I see them as a very principled group of MLAs.

They have no idea if they will ever form government again but they've stuck around to make a difference for Albertans like us. I have great admiration for that. They aren't a bunch of opportunists. The NDP ground it out for decades on principles, Grant Notley almost alone.

If they seem standoffish and hostile, it is probably a legacy of all those years in this difficult political environment in Alberta. I see great consistency in what the NDP stands for and fights for. Things that matter vitally to me.

And did it ever matter more than now that a party fights for the environment, public health care, public education, against racism, for the unhoused, lower income people, people forced onto ADAP and on and on. Against separation from Canada!

In my view, you are a credible voice with real insight into conservative politics in Alberta but a little cynical, at a time when people are so bloody cynical already about politics and politicians. This feeds into continuing UCP control of this province, sadly.

I’ve tried to explain my positioning before— and every new subscriber receives a long-winded disclaimer as a “thank you” lol— but I took this conversation in and thought about it; not for the first time.

I had this conversation during the election in 2023 with friends as well. That was also not the first time I had to think about what weight I give my words or my work.

Thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and becomes a free subscriber. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work; to those who have, your support is greatly appreciated!

Share

Subscribe now

Read more

It’s rare that I wake up to an invitation to a surprise dinner theatre. Yet, there it was, within minutes; a three-course meal complete with an impeccably dressed table, beckoning me to sit down and enjoy an exceptionally questionable show.

First course: salade de mots de la viande rouge, or, word salad featuring the Chef’s special of red meats

The first course began with a twist, here in 2026; the Conservative Party of Canada apparently convened its own COVID inquiry, called the Allison Inquiry, and a doctor— who apparently believes in the many-times debunked respiratory virus healing properties of parasitic worm-killing medication— holding a press conference to claim that he has the evidence that a vaccine delivered to 67 per cent of the world’s population harmed more people than the virus itself.

He noted, with incredible confidence, that fewer people were affected during 2020 than after the vaccine became available in 2021.

I heard the record scratch in my mind and my head twitched slightly.

Can anyone think of a single reason that might be?

Just one.

One little thing that not only set certain people off to fight against “government tyranny” by marching in the streets and joining a convoy to Ottawa to complain about what the provinces were doing. Something that may have played a tiny wee role in stopping the spread of a pandemic in 2020 that was not in place consistently in 2021?

That’s right; “lockdowns”.

There’s some selective memory taking place when a guy whose participation in a ‘prove we were right’ inquiry ignores the reason he’s even been given the opportunity to be there.

Lockdowns are what pissed off the people who are apparently still living in the moment of having their provincial governments choose to protect hospitals and healthcare workers (and, you know, anyone who needed them) over their individual needs.

And what did widespread release and uptake of the vaccine promote?

That’s right, “back to normal”!

Send the kids off to school, get the parents back to the office, open the bars, and bring back packed stadiums for hockey games and concerts.

I’m not an MD, mind you. It was just, like, the biggest story of my lifetime for a solid two years and I had to pay attention to what was going on. Except I chose to get my information from actual scientists instead of the Danielle Smith Show on 770 CHQR.

My first reaction to the video was “when is this clip from??” I checked the date three times.

Lots of things trigger my memory and bring me back to another time; songs, movies… writing the word “Facebook” can remind me how my Nana called it “space book” like, all the time.

Hearing Phantom of the Opera can give me a lovely reminder, visual and auditory, of sitting in the back seat of my late uncle Jack’s car, and watching You’ve Got Mail takes me back to our condo in Kansas City. And this video took me back to March 622, 2020.

Except it was from today; August 13, 2026.

I realize that the pandemic was traumatic for some people. I would say the mis and disinformation was more traumatic, as evidenced by the fact that they’re still stuck there; though it certainly doesn’t help that they’re relying on people who do shoddy research for answers.

Excluding variables that may have, let alone probably had, an effect on the results is shoddy research. Sorry, not sorry.

As with Alberta’s inquiry led by the once-respected Preston Manning, I will try to read whatever comes out of it but I will not torture myself by slogging through illogical reasoning. It’s the real bonus of being independent, let me tell you.

Second course: aged American-style turkey, served with a maple sauce and a variety, one might even say ‘party’, of tea

I was assaulted first by the caption on Stockwell Day’s video. Yeah— Stockwell effing Day is still alive; who knew??

“Are illegal immigrants raping Canadian women,” it asked. Too early for turkey, I thought. Far, far, far (far, far), too early.

In the video, the confused former leader of the Canadian Alliance (who Stephen Harper succeeded before “merging” with the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada) repeatedly referred to the “Liberal Minister of Education” claiming she defended an immigrant in Canada who was brought up on charges of sexual assault, again, from being deported. This decision, he said, obviously came directly from the Prime Minister, and then proceeded to state he knew what had been said by the PM. It’s… not easy to sit through someone gobbledy-gooking.

After calling her the “Minister of Education” three or four times (and not using a name, which made it impossible to try and figure out who he was actually talking about), he finally slipped into a moment of lucidity and said “Minister of Immigration”, which gave me something to go on. Not that I could find any evidence to support what he was saying about the elected officials anyway; but it was a start.

Turkey.

The story has a foundation in reality, despite what Mr. Day did to it. Apparently that guy has a podcast, too… how alarming.

The political story is that Canadian judges have determined sentences in criminal cases that would not trigger a deportation. I chose my phrasing carefully there on purpose because as much as we would like to believe this is a political decision, it is not.

In addition to not being an M.D., I am also neither a lawyer nor a judge. I am aware, however, that politicians should not be attempting to insert themselves into the judiciary. At all.

Those who have tried, like Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (sure, his former Chief of Staff Gerald Butts took the fall but we all know that Chiefs of Staff don’t act on their own volition in that role and if they do, it’s still their boss’ failure) and Premier Danielle Smith (who just made the call herself like someone who has far too little experience being held accountable for their own actions) received letters of tut-tutting from their respective ethics commissioners.

Gee. I wonder why it keeps happening…

I digress.

We non-lawyers and non-judges may not like the reasoning a judge uses to decide a particular case but we do not want our judiciary to be an arm of political or personal ideology that takes precedence over reason and law. We need only look at the very dangerous precedents being set down south to figure out why that is. One may think it’s fine if they support the ideological boundaries but when we set those boundaries, we also open the door to the alternative being set and eventually overruling the other.

Go after their reasoning— I certainly have— but to wish for a system that is open to political interference is to hope that the law is applied unequally and unfairly, not just for others, but at risk of the same happening to one’s self.

With that being said, this is precisely the criticism that Mr. Day and Calgary-Nose Hill MP Michelle Rempel-Garner are levying (at the wrong people, as seems to be their wont, but that is to be expected in the 2020’s, apparently). Their complaint is that one’s immigration status is taken into consideration during sentencing, as if it’s no big deal to deport someone.

It very much is a big deal and I will point to one case in which a person was deported; a person who showed genuine remorse for his role in it not because it was intentional but because it was avoidable: the driver of the rig that hit the Humboldt Broncos’ bus.

Now, the charges that Ms. Rempel-Garner (or the CPC— either, or) are pointing to are not nearly as serious as the one faced by the driver of that truck on that fateful day. They point to a theft “after a violent altercation” and two others that I almost agree with but for very different reasons; one breach of a no-contact order from his former partner, and the other, sexual assault.

The latter two, for reasons that would escape me if I thought that Canadian men received stiffer sentences for putting women at risk, are a product of the fact that women’s safety is not considered a priority— period— in either Canadian law or society. If it was, the CPC wouldn’t be pointing at how “immigrants” are “getting away with it”.

MEN get away with it. MEN get away with a few months behind bars for ruining children’s lives all the time. MEN get away with probation for rape, or an acquittal, because judges don’t want to disrupt their earning potential. MEN get away with this in court and Canadian society CONSTANTLY.

Until that changes, don’t come at me with “but immigrants are getting special treatment”— no they freaking aren’t, they’re getting the same light sentences Canadian men get for the same act.

Fix the home-grown problem and you won’t have to worry about the side effects anymore.

Phew. Guess that course also came with an extra, ahem, serving.

Third course: creme de la creme, with a cherry on top

The separatist dream is that Alberta will be rich, with no provincial tax, but somehow have access to all the money that currently goes to federal tax. I’m not sure exactly how they get around taxes; perhaps by calling it something completely original like a “celebratory independence-building fund”.

Obviously some would buy it— have you seen how much they’re giving to independence TPAs??

Not as much as Danielle Smith hands over to former campaign staffers to build a website, but like, it’s close.

Economists have, I think, struggled to take the independence movement seriously (as have most of us), and so detailed projections of what it would cost are few.

University of Calgary economist Trevor Tombe did one in July 2025 where he acknowledged that an independent Alberta would be a poorer Alberta generally speaking, but also using recent examples like how Brexit affected the U.K.’s finances, and how Quebec still hasn’t managed to become the economic powerhouse that it has every foundational opportunity to be. He doesn’t directly name the fact that investment in the province has lagged spectacularly since the independence movement’s heyday, but my favourite example is that the Bank of Montreal moved their headquarters to Toronto and never looked back. Ouch.

A recent economic outlook put some tangible numbers to the idea of an independent Alberta (all of these assume the U.S. wouldn’t try to strongarm a teeny new country into giving away our oil without the President authorizing the kidnapping our leader… oh… wait…).

Sorry, I got lost in the decadent flavours there. Where was I? Ah, yes; tangible numbers. While there could be a benefit to every single Albertan who remains in an independent Alberta (and we know it won’t be as many who are currently here) of around $1,075 for every resident, the requirement to replace every position and function that Canada provides (and every independent country that participates in a modern world provides) would cost around $6,996 per resident.

My math isn’t fabulous but that doesn’t seem to balance out to quite the mountains of cash for every Albertan that the separatists are promising. Unless they mean it will cost mountains of cash. Then, they’re totally right.

I don’t know about you, but I could use a nap. Probably all the turkey.

Thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and becomes a free subscriber. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work; to those who have, your support is greatly appreciated!

Subscribe now

Share

Texas says “whoa” as Yankee Doodle Dani yells “come and get it!”

Texas governor Greg Abbott has issued a moratorium on data centres until the state can get some answers on why those centres are requesting five times more electricity than the entire state has used at its peak. According to USA Today, this came after a June letter requesting an audit of how much water and electricity the data centres were using. Additionally, the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) says they’re fielding requests for more than 474 gigawatts of electricity— that’s the “five times” number above— with 90 per cent of that request coming from data centres.

The governor has also been urged to call a special meeting over water usage to protect agriculture.

For months now, Alberta Premier Danielle Smith and her UCP caucus have been pooh-poohing residential concerns over data centres slated for rural areas around the province over water usage and electrical grid concerns. But what are they really gonna do? Vote NDP? lol

Shockingly, from a party that raged against the green energy machines and focused “deeply” on the environmental impact and clean up costs of those projects, the UCP’s new data centre Q and A page (no word yet on which of Danielle Smith’s former campaign staffers raked in three year’s salary from Albertans for this one) doesn’t mention that at all. Apparently, like oil and gas, it’s nothing but winning!

The whole world is lining up to buy what data centres will provide, the website tells us, and there are “rules” that will protect our power bill, our water, our community, and our wallet.

I’m not sure if you’re familiar with Danielle “I will fix healthcare in 90 days and also we should totally double the population of Alberta” Smith, but planning beyond the soundbite isn’t exactly a strength the Premier has demonstrated even a passing familiarity with; let alone may actually possess.

And if you tried to keep with how many times she changed the “rules” to help the separatists…

I’m just saying that some people instill trust and those people are not Danielle Smith.

According to McKinsey and Company, “(a)s of the end of 2025, almost nine out of ten companies had deployed AI in at least one business function… but 94 percent of respondents report not seeing ‘significant’ value from those investments.” However, they also add that real innovation will likely come from using the new tool in a way that hasn’t been invented it, but is expected to materialize now that the tool exists.

There’s always a risk in being first in line to buy into new technology but we’re not first. We’d be early, and maybe that will pay off, but I’d definitely prefer to hear from someone who isn’t willing to just make stuff up when they don’t know (or would rather not tell us) the answers. I also think Albertans should demand a full accounting of the environmental liabilities and how this government plans to collect and actually save towards those costs— for real— this time.

How to know whether you’re a friend of the UCP

1. Does Health Minister Adriana LaGrange intervene on your behalf to make sure you get paid at least double the AHS cap?

lol, no. Apparently, you can only get paid what things actually cost if the Health Minister goes to bat for you. Which they, with backing from the Premier’s office, will do to get double the “standard” rate a chartered surgical facility linked to the same person who allegedly scammed Albertans out of $30 million, but that will not be happening if you self-refer for diagnostic testing, even if they discover you have cancer or don’t want to wait a year or three. Albertans will be responsible for the amount a private clinic charges over and above the “standard” rate.

It’s a scary thought: being added to a waitlist for a scan your doctor has ordered. Public facilities won’t be incentivized to increase wait times for patients but private facilities likely would be. It’s called a “profit motive”. After all, if you want your doctor to have faster access to a scan that may save your life, you just might be willing to pay for it.

The risk isn’t borne by the clinic and the reward is more profit. Win/win!

And sure, Danielle Smith said the costs would be reimbursed if the tests proved you had cancer but what you need to ask yourself is this; are you really a friend of the UCP? Because if you were, they’d probably be making sure you could profit off your illness, too.

Dyck v Coward; it’s not a punchline, it’s a UCP nomination race

The separatists don’t need their own political party because they already have one: it’s called the United Conservative Party.

Nominations are being contested by separatists and conspiracy theorists in rural Alberta ridings because it’s not like it’s a serious job or anything— just look at the jackasses who are already there. What’s a few more conspiracy theorists and separatists making decisions that affect people’s lives?

What is rural Alberta gonna do? Vote for someone without a blue sign? lol

As always, Dave Cournoyer has the nomination details:

Daveberta - Alberta politics and elections

Separatists duking it out for UCP candidate nominations in Grande Prairie and Sherwood Park

Two Grande Prairie MLAs and one former Edmonton-area MLA are facing nomination challenges as United Conservative Party members choose their candidates ahead of Alberta’s next provincial election…

Read more

a month ago · 19 likes · 2 comments · Dave Cournoyer

Someone forgot to feed the anger machine last month

Ivan Pavlov was a Russian physiologist who was studying salivation in dogs in the late 1800’s. After noticing that his dogs would salivate upon hearing the footsteps of the approaching lab assistant who regularly brought them food. In order to test whether the dogs were just reacting to the lab assistant, he introduced a sound— a bell— after which, the dogs would be fed intravenously. As it turned out, they learned to salivate at the sound of a bell, just as they had inadvertently done to the approaching footsteps of the person who fed them. It was an accidental, but obviously important discovery in behavioural conditioning.

Behavioural conditioning can be used for good— think of rewarding children with an extra story at bedtime or a movie for completing their chores— and it can also be used to manipulate the ever-loving heck out of people.

I talk about Alberta politics; where do you think I’m going with this?

My background isn’t in psychology but when I was first bitten by the politics bug, I very much wished it was. From the four or five courses I did take, I was rather impressed to see so many of the manipulative techniques I’d learned about applied so regularly. It’s also the reason I try to avoid blaming Conservatives as a whole for the people who represent them; it’s like blaming the victim.

The other part I can hardly attest to with 100 per cent confidence is whether the manipulator actually knows how they’re manipulating people, if they’ve just learned how to get the reaction they want, or that they’ve internalized being manipulated so well that they actually believe what they’re saying.

They all have their payoffs. For politicians, it’s maintaining a stable base of voters. For political parties, it’s keeping the coffers full. For, say, opinion columnists, it’s keeping those eyeballs and clicks up.

In Alberta, our Pavlovian response is typically brought about by trigger words. “Trudeau” is an all-timer, for sure, but on a slow news day, “equalization” brings all the usual suspects to the yard (and some well-deserved snark).

It’ll be interesting to see if it helps sway some votes to support Danielle Smith’s separatist question. Keeping Albertans angry at the rest of Canada and angry at the federal government is kind of how Conservative leaders and their water boys herd the sheep here.

With all the focus on Canada strong lately, and a stagnant separatist movement, it makes sense that the U.S.-owned propaganda outlet would be trying to drive a wedge into it. With the Premier’s help, of course.

Danielle Smith has been shaking hands with Prime Minister Mark Carney on pipelines and housing while also trying to remind Albertans that they have a deep-seated grudge against the rest of the country; especially as we’re nearing the start of the campaign for her anti-Canadian values referendum.

I fully expect we will be seeing both of Danielle Smith’s faces on both sides of the issue as that gets going in the fall.

Final thoughts

Thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and becomes a free subscriber. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work; to those who have, your support is greatly appreciated!

Subscribe now

Share

Last year, the UCP staged a moral panic about books, in school libraries, that could potentially cause confusion if leant to a five-year old. Books that were not targeted at five, ten, or even 13-year old’s, but “mature teens” and “young adults”. Books that had suggestive cartoon drawings that were perfectly recognizable to an adult audience, but not necessarily to the audience either the Premier or the Minister of Education claimed to be protecting.

Only the parents of five year-old’s vote, however.

While the UCP couldn’t produce a single statistic to justify “protecting” children from suggestive cartoon drawings in books that weren’t meant for them, there are statistics about who is at higher risk of developing legitimately personally and socially harmful gambling addictions. Despite this, our airwaves are now being inundated with gambling ads; almost as if the UCP only acts if it’s politically useful.

The manufactured outrage that led to book bans and spilled over into the creation of public library inspectors was necessary, they said, to protect children from learning about consensual sexual relationships— and find out what Albertans were accessing at public libraries.

On protecting Albertans from developing gambling addictions, they’re silent.

Gambling addictions have been on the rise in Alberta since the introduction of Video Lottery Terminals (VLT’s) in the 1990’s; and so have government revenues from gambling.

Back in 2023, an excellent piece in Alberta Views demonstrated the benefits to the Alberta government, but also the tolls— and that was before the UCP opened up the province to U.S. gambling sites and their incessant advertizing.

The AGLC and the Problem Gambling Research Network (PGRN) put Alberta’s rate of problem gambling at 5 per cent. This includes moderate to severe gambling problems and would translate to roughly 160,000 adult Albertans. The PGRN says up to 14 more people are affected directly or indirectly by one problem gambler, through family dysfunction or stress, distraction or theft at work, or health problems, bankruptcy or suicide.

And young people are at higher risk. Almost 10 per cent of Albertans aged 12–17, says the PGRN, “gamble frequently and may be at risk of becoming problem gamblers.” (Emphasis mine.)

“Who wants Albertans to gamble more? All of us.” by Evan Osenton; Alberta Views, Oct. 2023

That seems important enough to reiterate: in 2023, the AGLC and PGRN believed young people were at higher risk.

Do you know what another word for 12-17 year old’s is? Children.

“Mommy, what’s a ‘parlay’?”

The same government that staged a moral panic over a suggestive cartoon image— to justify inspectors, lists, and book bans— not only authorized, but welcomed gambling ads on our radios, televisions, and billboards.

Accessible to all ages, targeted at all ages, and preying on all ages.

I started to hear about an excess amount of sport betting ads during hockey games in 2022/23. I hadn’t had cable in a few years but we added Sportsnet online to follow the Edmonton Oilers playoff run in 2023. I was shocked at how many gambling ads there were. In my naivety, I thought it must be worse if you were watching it online. I mean, that’s where the gambling is, right?

Wrong. I happened to be at a family event at a relative’s while a playoff game was on and I was astounded to find that it wasn’t just a bombardment of sports betting ads on the internet but also on cable television.

Fast-forward to 2026, when the UCP decided more gambling options should be available to Albertans, and I’m not the only one debating on calling 211 to complain about how gambling ads are affecting me.

When I can’t make a seven-minute drive to the recycling centre without hearing an ad for gambling on the radio— and another on the way back— or watch a hockey game with my family without seeing at least one gambling ad every commercial break, it feels less like marketing and more like predatory behaviour.

If you were a kid in the 1980’s…

Government intervention isn’t unprecedented (aside from banning books— in Canada, at least).

If you were a kid in the 1980’s, you probably made ashtrays for your parents in art class— when you were in elementary school. You likely bought candy stick “cigarettes” with a picture of Popeye on the package. You may also remember Camel’s cartoon mascot.

Eventually, people realized how insane it actually was and governments responded.

It became illegal for cigarette companies to advertize at all. There was no more smoking in movies or on television, candy cigarettes got the boot, and the province of Alberta banned smoking indoors in the early 2000’s. Now, all cigarettes are behind opaque doors, they all have the same brown packaging, and a full half of the package is a text warning accompanied by some grotesque image.

All of this was done in an effort to stop glamourizing smoking, signal that it was no longer socially acceptable to put one’s health (and everyone around them) at risk, and not allow cigarette companies to prey on new customers; specifically, children.

Governments were not silent, they didn’t look away, they acted.

But gambling? Something we already knew beforehand put children between the ages of 12-17 at higher risk of developing an addiction to?

Not a peep from the Premier about the potential harms.

Not a sound from the Minister of Children’s Services.

Almost as if protecting children is only worthwhile to the UCP if it’s politically convenient for them.

The eight-second “if you or someone you know” well wishes after the literal onslaught of gambling ads are not doing anywhere near the work that the UCP put into banning books to protect children from suggestive images.

Yet, in Alberta today, kids don’t need to sneak into a library to find suggestive content, they can access repetitive, targeted, and potentially harmful content by turning on the radio or a hockey game.

This isn’t about protecting children, it’s about protecting revenue; and the UCP no longer cares who will pay the price.

Thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and becomes a free subscriber. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work; to those who have, your support is greatly appreciated!

Subscribe now

Share

Sometimes readers tell me they appreciate my snark and humour, and honestly, thank god; it’s the only way I can get through a week of Alberta politics without dissolving into a puddle of existential dread. So, I’m glad it works for you too.

Read more

Yankee Doodle Dani directs Edmonton Police to react to violence, not prevent it

Welcome to Alberta, Canada where we have both a Premier and Public Safety Minister who are ready to stand up and defend your right to make people feel unsafe in their communities.

Ms. Smith and Public Safety Minister Mike Ellis responded to the Edmonton Police Service’s public safety announcement on X (that they deleted) letting the public know that they can report hate-motivated incidents.

EPS describes a hate-motivated incident as:

a non-criminal action motivated in whole or in part by the suspects bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, or any other similar factor. An example of this could be a dispute over a parking spot where a person calls another person a racialized name.

I spoke with the founder of StopHateAB.ca, Dr. Irfan Choudhry from McEwan University, back in 2018. At that time, the site collected personal reports with the intention of tracking these non-criminal actions so law enforcement, non-profit, and/or government partners could better target resources to respond to increases in hate-motivated incidents. Unlike the Premier’s suggestion that police services just focus on reacting only after violent crimes are committed, the Edmonton Police Service has made it their mission to also seek to prevent violent incidences in Edmonton communities when they can.

Tracking hate incidents is one way they do that. Radical, I know.

Violence is not typically the first act of a hate-motivated person but the result of an escalation that begins with ignorant, if non-criminal acts; like airing their bias, prejudice or hate directly at a target. Even that act is likely an escalation from private expressions, or within a safe space that encourages more public expressions of hate.

It’s possible the Premier and Public Safety Minister are more familiar with the statistics gathered by Jewish human rights organization B’nai Brith which follows reports of non-criminal incidents of hate targeting Jewish people, which they said in April of this year is a “national concern”.

Perhaps the walking embarrassments who are our Public Safety Minister and Premier can manage to extrapolate from that report why law enforcement would seek the opportunity to monitor non-criminal incidences before they turn violent.

The question before us is not whether antisemitism exists; we know that it does. The question is whether we have the collective will to confront it. We believe that we do. And we will not relent until that belief is matched by action.

After all, the safety of one community is inseparable from the safety of all. (emphasis mine)

Simon Wolfe, CEO B’nai Brith Canada

Evergreen post, really.

Friendly advice to commentators; no serious person in Alberta is asking the Liberals to show up on the separatist issue

My favourite political podcast is by Albertans. My second is by Ontarians and a Sasky who I think spends a lot of time in Ontario. I’m not saying the latter doesn’t get Alberta but sometimes… they do not seem to really “get” Alberta.

So let me say this as clearly as possible: literally no serious person in Alberta wants Prime Minister Mark Carney to step in front of Danielle Smith on this issue. Not one.

The only people asking for that are trying to activate the Conservative fail-safe of “fighting Ottawa” or whatever the grievance du jour is that takes the focus off holding a provincial government accountable.

This isn’t like Quebec where a party leader told the public they would hold a referendum on separation and then got a mandate to suspend their economic prosperity for a generation. That’s not what happened here.

Albertans did not vote for a party to push a separatist referendum on us. I mean, obviously some did, but not because Danielle Smith and the UCP were campaigning on it.

Neither Danielle Smith nor the UCP campaigned publicly on helping the separatists get a referendum.

They weren’t elected by a majority of Albertans to help the separatists get a referendum.

Albertans did not agree to that.

So, please; we don’t need the rest of the country, let alone the Prime Minister, offering to help clean up Danielle Smith’s mess.

We’ve got this.

Who does Alberta’s flag belong to?

When Sobey’s decided to throw up an Alberta flag to denote extra‑Canadian products in some of its Alberta stores, at least one person felt the company was signaling support for the separatist movement. And who can blame them? The flag has been dragged into the same performative grievance vortex that briefly swallowed the Canadian flag during the convoy era. Now, it’s lawn signs, billboards, and merch for people who desperately want “Alberta. Strong and free.” to be a personality.

And therein lies the problem: for many more Albertans than there are separatists, it was.

It’s great branding — for separatists— but for the 70–80 per cent of Albertans who aren’t separatists, it’s a warning label.

It also reminded me of Common Ground Politics and their work discovering “Joe”, and how many Albertans don’t feel included in the definition of “Albertan” unless they match a very specific archetype: Joe. Their research isn’t (that) new. The separatist sentiment isn’t new. The movement to inflate it isn’t new. But something changed in 2026 — and it changed only here.

A Leger poll in June found Alberta was the only province where attachment to the province over country fell. It fell by 11 points, down to 34 per cent, barely above the high‑water mark of separatist sentiment.

It’s more than a crack in the foundation; it’s a political culture buckling.

Jack Jedwab, pres­id­ent and CEO of the Asso­ci­ation for Cana­dian Stud­ies who commissioned the poll, suggested it might be pushback against the separation movement. Maybe. Or maybe pushing Albertans to the point where they’re forced to choose between their province and country doesn’t just damage communities and relationships— it causes Albertans to question what it means to be Albertan.

The tragicomedy that is Danielle Smith just keeps giving.

If anyone could blow up the conservative political machine carefully constructed by generations of Conservative leaders to secure their own political futures— and take Alberta’s political culture down with it— it’s Danielle Smith; tearing through it with the enthusiasm of a five‑year‑old on Christmas morning.

In the same Leger poll, 59 per cent of Albertans rejected outright the idea that they’re more attached to their province than their country.

It’s something I didn’t even think was possible a decade ago.

On second thought, back then it probably wasn’t possible.

Snicker.

Final thoughts

Thanks to everyone who reads, shares, and becomes a free subscriber. Please consider becoming a paid subscriber to support my work; to those who have, your support is greatly appreciated!

Subscribe now

Share