Danielle Smith’s… wins?
The Premier sat down with Kathleen Petty for last week’s episode of West of Centre. It was… difficult. If you’re a person who understands logic and reasoning, or has any knowledge of what’s been going on for the past three and a half years, it’s not easy. I tried it twice. The first time because I couldn’t wait and the second because the first time informed me that I had to actually fact check it.
What follows is only the first three minutes. I will have to do a part two.
I want to remind readers (in case you’re new here) that I don’t expect everyone to know some of this stuff but I do expect the Premier of Alberta— who legitimately has the greatest nerd base (it’s a compliment) in the province at her beck and call— will. Not “should” or “could”— because she does— but “will.”
When she makes inexcusably bad decisions, I don’t blame the people who work for the GoA— I blame her for choosing to listen to a bunch of yahoos instead.
The first complaint I have is around data gathering.
Alberta’s electoral geopolitics are well known. We have a “three-legged stool” as Ralph Klein called it; Edmonton, Calgary, and rural Alberta.
When Danielle Smith was first elected, she said she wanted to prioritize rural voices. That was great for 33 percent of the population but not for the majority of Albertans. She was committed, however.
In 2025, Danielle Smith led the Alberta Next Panel by the nose around rural Alberta seeking input from rural Alberta on issues important to rural Alberta. Those engagement sessions “directly shaped” the 10 referendum questions that the Premier chose to spend over $100 million to put to all Albertans.
Here’s where the data gathering matters.
A representative sample is achieved by asking for input from people who might be representative of the population. Being that rural Alberta represents a third of the population, no one who is seeking a representative sample of Albertans would spend 80 per cent of their time in a third of the province.
From those engagement sessions— eight in rural Alberta, one in west Edmonton, and one other in south Calgary— the Premier inferred that she had a majority level of support for the questions she was going to put forward in a referendum. They included five questions on restricting taxpayers from public services based solely on their immigration status, and some constitutional questions that would allow her to “fight Ottawa” instead of doing her job.
The constitutional questions failed, while the second-class citizen questions received low levels of support— with none above 50 per cent in either Calgary or Edmonton— and Albertans from both urban and rural overwhelmingly rejected holding a binding referendum on separation.
The Premier publicly adopted the position of staying in Canada long after House Leader Joseph Schow belittled the opposition New Democrats as being “the only ones talking about separation,” while his party brass and membership were actively campaigning on it.
Like, it was true, but not for good reason.
The Alberta Next panel brought together a broad mix of leaders, experts, and community voices to gather input, discuss solutions, and provide feedback to the Alberta government on how Alberta can better protect its interests, defend its economy, and assert its place in Confederation.
The panel asked the big questions shaping our future, from our relationship with Ottawa to bold proposals like collecting our own personal income taxes, reforming equalization, and even amending the Constitution.
The results of the referendum, with low margins of support on the questions that did pass, and low but equally notable failures on the others, are exactly what you would expect from skewing your data gathering in the first place.
The Premier says she took the results as “proceed with caution” because what she expected would be big wins (since she didn’t collect a representative sample) were not. The margins of support were dismal. So were the losses.
All it proved is that Danielle Smith didn’t know what she was doing. On purpose.
In a completely unexpected twist, the Premier said that the questions about denying health and education access from temporary workers was somehow about getting the federal government to approve permanent residency faster.
I suppose I need to point out that is not anything close to what the questions were asking.
And the fact that they didn’t bring up faster approval for permanent residency makes me give the Premier even more side-eye.
Why didn’t she just say that’s what she wanted to do?
I imagine it would have looked less like taking away access and more like: “do you support the Alberta government getting more immigrants on the path to citizenship?”
It seems like a simple enough question to ask.
And the fact that she is now saying that’s what she meant is suspect AF.
It’s an insult to rural, urban, and businesses.
And I hate that I had to hear it twice.
She said “everybody’s telling me these are really are important, but are they?” No. Because it wasn’t “everybody,” let alone a representative sample that would have cost us a fraction of what you spent to find out in an opinion poll, you absolute twit.
I do recall that I hadn’t started swearing excessively until well after the three-minute mark. I will go back to it after I’ve had a much-needed sleep in my own bed after looking after G-babies for the past four days.
Separatists say they aren’t leaving the UCP
And why would they? Because Danielle said so? As I wrote earlier this week (and over the past three and a half years), Danielle Smith says a lot of things. With the cushion of time only decreasing before the next election, the narrative has to change lest she cough cough PP herself.
Now that’s one hell of a double entendre only some of us fully get.
As Jason Kenney said, it’s not like the party can grill every single member about their political views.
However, those who are more widely recognized are easy pickings. Unfortunately for the UCP, they are also people who have either proven, purchased, or even both, a high level of organizational capacity.
Suddenly, the person who took credit for ousting Jason Kenney as UCP leader through legitimate party processes is worth a passing interest once again— and it doesn’t matter if the party publicly takes away their memberships.
The separatists had a year to build their lists, and fundraise, and who knows if they downloaded the voter’s lists when they had the chance. Or had it was printed and bound as party favours.
I’m not saying they don’t need Danielle Smith.
I’m simply saying that they can get rid of her whenever they choose.
That threat will remain.
Albertans will have to decide whether they’re willing to risk their, and the economy’s, future now that the separatists have their foothold in the UCP.
The worst game of Guess Who ever
Mitch Sylvestre, formerly (???) the CEO of the Alberta Prosperity Project and current Constituency Association President of the UCP in Bonnyville-Cold Lake-St. Paul, told CTV just before the referendum that he wouldn’t accept any result that showed less than 40 per cent support for holding a binding separation referendum. He said it was because (polling has consistently shown that) just over half of United Conservative Party supporters also support separation.
With my usual mathing caveat, if the UCP has around 50 per cent support in Alberta, and if just over half of the people who support the UCP also support separation, then support for separation would be somewhere around 25 per cent. Division and all.
To me, the math worked out perfectly. Half the UCP equals 25 per cent and that’s what the support for a binding referendum received in Danielle Smith’s referendum.
This is also why I said that they can get rid of the more well-known members without managing to dent support for separation within the party generally; because no one knows who they are.
I heard Tanya Clemens speak at the We Unify event. She said that she’d been traveling around and assisting Keith Wilson with his “Let Alberta Decide” campaign. Then I saw that she’s apparently a board member with the Alberta Prosperity Project, too. She supports separation. She also supports the UCP.
Chris Scott, owner of the Whistle Stop cafe who rose to Facebook/X fame after refusing to follow public health closure orders during COVID, and was the headliner for “Let’s Talk Alberta” (a “we should be able to have a civil conversation about infringing on the Charter rights of Canadians” road show), is also an APP board member. He supports separating because he doesn’t see any reason to be part of a country that doesn’t vote like he wants to. He’s running for a board position with the UCP at their AGM in November.
Kathy Flett, former Chief Financial Officer for WEXIT Canada (I can’t even make that up), and CFO for the Wildrose Independence Party of Alberta, and who has been a regular voice for independence, is challenging the UCP nomination in Sherwood Park.
I only know these names because I went out of my way to go into their spaces.
I don’t know the names of every person in the room who was there to listen to Mitch Sylvestre on his separation tour of Alberta, or who donated to Let Alberta Decide or Let’s Talk Alberta, or who was in the rooms where Kathy Flett was speaking; and neither does the UCP.
Even if the people I could pick out of a lineup were no longer allowed to be active members, that doesn’t account for the other 24.99995 per cent of voters (and half of the UCP base) who support the same goal.
Final thoughts
A solid 6.
Becoming a paid subscriber not only supports my work but makes it possible for me to report from places none of us want to go. I’ve signed up for another $329 worth over the next 30 days so if you’ve been waiting for a reason to become a paying subscriber— now would be helpful! To those who already do; I’m grateful!
and the Gong Show that is Magpie Dani and the UCP continues while the paying customers are having WTF attacks!
Predict she will Gerrymander, force closure and then go see the Lt. Gov. before the UCP AGM.
I think, from that interview, she is trying to pretend that her anti-vaxxer Christo-fascist bigoted base are not the same people as the separatists.
But we know they are.