An Opa concerned about the future of his granddaughter.
Alberta, Canada
Joined November 2018
- Tweets12.5K
- Following2.9K
- Followers2.1K
- Likes17K
Converting a non-Member Adopted Policy into UCP Policy
According to Danielle Smith a “Loyalty to a united Canada” was a ‘founding principle’ of the UCP. However, documents from the Founding General Meeting reveal that while it was among 31 principles considered, only 7 were adopted as founding principles and a “Loyalty to a united Canada” was not among them.
Nonetheless, still adhering to this being a ‘founding principle’ of the party, she has since declared that it was the “reason” she ran for the leadership of the United Conservative Party and that it was the principle she “used to govern (her) actions as leader”.
With the approval for Option 1 in her referendum, Smith has subsequently declared that such support, from the general electorate, not strictly due to the UCP electorate, for her non-adopted ‘founding principle’ was now affirmed (“The question that took place on Monday was whether that (bogus ‘founding principle’) should change and the answer was no.”).
Imagine that, UCP policy is now determined not by members of the UCP party, but, rather, by a response to a non-binding opinion poll, which likely contained a preponderance of NDP voters.
To reinforce that decision by the general electorate as a new-found policy of the UCP, she issued an edict that such a position must be adhered to or those not willing to do so, should find another party. Finally, her obliging Board of Directors through a resolution reinforced her edict by requiring board members and candidates now to sign a Pro-Canada loyalty pledge.
So a non-member adopted UCP policy became a UCP policy with the membership sitting on the sidelines. Top down or Bottom up?
What a Conundrum
teapawt.org/pardybruce/status/2115…
Pro-independence Candidates for UCP Board Positions Willing to Sign Pro-Canada Pledge
According to a CBC report, “Multiple pro-independence advocates seeking to win UCP director posts told CBC News…that they’re willing to sign the (Pro-Canada) agreement, but it won’t change their long-term aspirations for an independent or sovereign Alberta.”
Three pro-independence individuals running for a position on the UCP’s Board of Directors were identified as being willing to sign the Pro-Canada form:
Chris Scott, who is seeking election as UCP Director for central Alberta
Jason Lavigne, who is seeking the party’s Vice-president of Policy and Governance position.
Vince Byfield, who has called for “independence, if necessary, but not necessarily independence” and is vying for a Vice-President spot on the board, said he gladly signed the form.
Will they be on Mitch Sylvestre’s candidate slate intended to elect a pro-independence Board willing to support a review of Danielle Smith’s leadership?
cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/u…
Rogue UCP Board?
The reference in Daniele Smith’s loyalty pledge form “that the UCP’s Board of Directors have resolved” indicates that the identified new requirement for election to the UCP Board of Directors came about through a resolution made by the current Board.
Accordingly, the current board, in my view, has clearly overstepped its powers. They are now creating an amendment to the party’s bylaws and rules on the fly without adoption by the members.
Accordingly, the current Board of Directors should resign; certainly those responsible for such behaviour.
Attached is the form from “Rules and Procedures for the Election of the United Conservative Association Board of Directors”, which was prepared for the 2026 AGM.
Ron Voss retweeted
erikthorvaldsson.substack.co…
UCP President Rob Smith says Alberta sovereigntists are indispensable to the party, then declares Danielle Smith’s leadership beyond question.
Apparently, we’re welcome to do the work, but not determine the party’s future.
That’s not unity. That’s subordination.
Ron Voss retweeted
"If you had candidates running who said, vote for me and I may or may not do what you ask me to do, it's not a very strong selling feature."
Hmm. Has she heard of the Iron Law of Woke Projection?
How’s it settled?
“I am the leader not only of government, but also the leader of my party…the leader of my party…the leader of my party…my party.
All said lovingly with a smile and a cackle.
teapawt.org/martyupnorth/status/21…
Ron Voss retweeted
The division in the UCP is real, and it’s not going away because Smith told people to accept the referendum result or leave.
Albertans voted roughly 75-25 against pursuing a binding separation process. That result is clear. What isn’t clear is how the party moves forward when a significant portion of the membership and some organizers still feel the core Alberta-first promises (greater control over immigration, a serious look at an Alberta Pension Plan, a provincial policing option that actually reduces RCMP reliance, and less federal overreach on resources and fiscal transfers) have been slow-walked or deferred while the government spent time and money on a multi-question ballot that mostly failed to deliver majority support on the big autonomy items.
Smith’s post-referendum message, that the UCP is not an independence party and those who want to keep pushing separation should find another party, landed as top-down direction to a lot of the people who put her there. Some constituency associations are already moving toward leadership-review motions. Others are digging in.
The AGM at the end of November will show how deep that split is. Pretending it is a small fringe that will simply quiet down ignores both the rural numbers on the referendum and the stated grievances around undelivered autonomy measures.
The NDP is largely quiet on the internal fight for a practical reason: a divided UCP is their clearest path to 2027.
Nenshi has previously framed the referendum as self-preservation politics and called for MLAs to declare their positions; the current relative silence lets the conservatives keep arguing with each other while the NDP positions itself as the stable alternative. Interrupting that process would be poor strategy on their part.
The people insisting the only choice is “keep the current leader or hand the province to the NDP” are repeating a false dichotomy. A different leader can hold the existing coalition, bring back members who feel the party has gone soft on provincial rights and concrete results, and still beat the NDP. What unites the broader UCP is not any one person. It is a clear commitment to responsible resource development, control over Alberta’s affairs where the Constitution allows, lower taxes, less federal interference, and policies that put Alberta families and workers first. Staying the course is not the only path, and “better the devil you know” is not a strategy.
A common-sense approach looks like this:
Immediate concrete action (next 30–45 days, before the AGM).
Publish specific timelines and measurable next steps on the issues that actually drew majority support on the ballot (immigration-related questions) and the long-promised autonomy files: an APP decision process with updated numbers and a clear path by year-end; an accelerated municipal policing expansion plan with targets for reducing RCMP reliance ahead of the 2032 contract horizon; and a tighter cabinet focused on wait times, classroom results, and energy development rather than process and messaging. If those timelines and first deliverables do not appear, the case for urgent replacement strengthens on results, not personality.
If course correction does not happen.
Trigger or allow a leadership review process that produces a new leader by early 2027 at the latest. That gives a full campaign window before the October 2027 election. The standard is straightforward: a leader who will pursue Alberta priorities without the pattern of raising expectations and then softening or deferring them.
The people begging for more of the same are not protecting the party. They are protecting a status quo that has already produced a byelection loss, softer polling, and open internal conflict. Albertans have every right to examine alternatives that keep the UCP competitive and focused on results instead of internal management.
The window to correct course is short.
After the AGM, it gets shorter.
It Was All a Lie
According to Danielle Smith, a “Loyalty to a united Canada” was a ‘founding principle’ of the UCP. However, documents from the Founding General Meeting reveal that while it was among 31 principles considered by the delegates, only 7 were adopted as founding principles and a “Loyalty to a united Canada” was not among them.
Despite her lie that this was a founding principle of the party, she has declared that it was the “reason” that she ran for the leadership of the United Conservative Party and that it was the principle she “used to govern (her) actions as leader”.
In other words, her whole Premiership was based upon a fabrication, a lie. Is this what conservatives understood as who they were electing as the Leader of the UCP and, in turn, the Premier of the province?
With her mindset of a “Loyalty to a united Canada”, her “actions” or inactions as Premier now become understandable. She centered her election campaign on the Free Alberta Strategy document, co-authored by her current chief of staff and fellow floor crosser, Rob Anderson. However, while promising an Alberta Sovereignty Act during the election campaign, upon becoming Premier, she gave us instead the Sovereign Alberta within a United Canada Act, and nothing else that “must be implemented”. We were sold a bill of goods!
Noteworthy, 7 years ago Danielle Smith told Jason Kenney as Premier to “act quickly” to “resurrect the ‘firewall’ proposals’”, akin to what was in the Free Alberta Strategy document, in order “to stem the tide of Alberta separatism”. She didn’t tell him to create a panel to find out what needs to be done.
So by her doing nothing in that regard, understandable in light of her devotion to a united Canada, choosing instead to be Canada’s doormat, she did nothing to stem the tide of Alberta separatism. Instead, as CW Alexander @alberta_cw has recently pointed out, “In fact, what we want in return (as an overture to the supporters of Alberta independence to keep them loyal to the party) is exactly what lit a fuse under the army of Albertans to petition for a referendum”.
Ron Voss retweeted
Here we go again.
Smith rejects claims 'separatists' helped her win UCP leadership, says she doesn't need their backing westernstandard.news/news/sm…
Insightful
“Canada is being pushed toward centralized power, diminished freedoms, and increasingly powerless citizens.
Call it globalism. Call it the political ruling class. Call it whatever you want.
Look what’s happening.
Mass immigration is transforming Canada, while election laws don’t require voters to produce documentary proof of citizenship.”
Think of the recent Alberta referendum with a massive amount of special (mail-in) ballots heavily skewed to Option 1. 🤔
“Globalists advance their agenda. Government promises to reverse it, but doesn’t. Elections come and go, but the same insiders, lobbyists, and powerful interests remain.”
Remember Danielle Smith campaigned to strengthen Alberta’s sovereignty, but once elected only gave us a Sovereign Alberta within a United Canada Act. Continued to embrace globalist Mark Carney’s climate change agenda.
“Keep them divided, distracted, and fighting each other instead of questioning who’s directing the herd.”
Albertans, sound familiar?
“How many broken promises? Political betrayals? Conservative governments that conserve absolutely nothing?”
teapawt.org/anthonyrussobc/status/…
Do you see the bigger picture of what just happened in British Columbia? If you think the few months were simply political infighting, you’re missing something much bigger.
We had a democratically elected Conservative leader. A real conservative. Kerry-Lynne Findlay had grassroots support, a clear vision, and something rare in Canadian politics: the backbone to follow through.
But there was a problem.
She wasn’t aligned with the federal Liberals or the globalist agenda I believe is driving this country.
She proposed a Western coalition to challenge federal overreach, fight the gun grab, defend freedom of religion and expression, enshrine property rights, and protect digital free speech.
She wasn’t promising to fight back. She was preparing to do it.
That threatened more than a few political careers.
A provincial government willing to challenge Ottawa? A leader who couldn’t be controlled by the usual power brokers?
That was a problem.
Then came the operatives, lobbyists, and party insiders. The backroom scheming, attempts to undermine her leadership, and ultimately blackmail.
I watched it unfold.
And eventually, they got what they wanted.
Goodbye KLF. Goodbye grassroots democracy.
Party bosses installed their own leader without a membership vote, then moved to rewrite the constitution so he wouldn’t face a leadership race.
The members elected a leader. Insiders replaced her and moved to change the rules to keep their man in power.
No vote. No accountability. No voice for members.
All TWO DAYS before an election writ dropped.
Just another coincidence?
Now zoom out.
This is bigger than BC.
Canada is being pushed toward centralized power, diminished freedoms, and increasingly powerless citizens.
Call it globalism. Call it the political ruling class. Call it whatever you want.
Look what’s happening.
Mass immigration is transforming Canada, while election laws don’t require voters to produce documentary proof of citizenship.
You can declare yourself a citizen without producing citizenship documents at the ballot box.
In BC, you can vote without presenting your own ID if another voter vouches for you.
Citizenship determines who shapes this country’s future. Why aren’t we demanding stronger verification?
Non-citizens cannot legally vote. But a prohibition and the safeguards enforcing it are different things.
Now ask yourself.
If powerful political interests are shaping this country’s direction, how do you keep the population from revolting?
Give them the illusion of choice.
Change the jerseys. Change the faces. Give people a few victories.
No more free drugs. A marginal tax adjustment. A handful of promises.
The sheep celebrate.
The sheep go back to sleep.
Different shepherd. Same direction.
Globalists advance their agenda. Government promises to reverse it, but doesn’t. Elections come and go, but the same insiders, lobbyists, and powerful interests remain.
Canadians keep fighting over which jersey deserves their loyalty.
The greatest political illusion is convincing people they’re in control while ensuring their choices never threaten those holding power.
Give the sheep just enough hope. Just enough change. Just enough outrage at the other team.
Keep them divided, distracted, and fighting each other instead of questioning who’s directing the herd.
How many broken promises? Political betrayals? Conservative governments that conserve absolutely nothing?
How much worse does Canada need to get before people wake up?
Real change doesn’t come from changing jerseys. It comes from changing who holds power.
The power brokers won this round in BC.
But here’s what they should fear.
The day the sheep realize they’re being herded is the day the shepherds lose control.
Stop worshipping parties. Stop celebrating crumbs. Stop mistaking a change of jerseys for a change of direction.
The illusion only works as long as we believe it.
Wake up, Canada.
Ron Voss retweeted
WHAT IF WE ONLY NEEDED FIVE?
The Balance of Power — A Strategy for Alberta Independence
What if the path forward for Alberta independence isn’t winning a provincial election, but winning just five seats?
The referendum revealed something interesting. Although Option 2 lost province-wide, support approached or exceeded 50% in five constituencies:
Rimbey–Rocky Mountain House–Sundre: 50.9%
Central Peace–Notley: 50.4%
Drumheller–Stettler: 48.4%
Grande Prairie–Wapiti: 46.9%
Taber–Warner: 46.3%
These are unofficial referendum figures, not projections of how people would vote for an independence party.
But consider this.
Under our first-past-the-post electoral system, a candidate doesn’t need 50% of the vote to win. They only need more votes than any other candidate.
In a three-way race, 40% could be enough. Sometimes even 35%.
Now imagine a future Alberta Legislature with 89 seats:
UCP: 42
NDP: 42
Independence Party: 5
Neither major party has a majority. Those five independence MLAs could potentially hold the balance of power.
This isn’t unprecedented. In 2017, just three BC Green MLAs helped determine which party would govern British Columbia through a confidence-and-supply agreement.
What could five independence MLAs accomplish?
Think about the objections we heard throughout the referendum campaign:
“What about policing?” Negotiate concrete steps toward establishing an Alberta provincial police service.
“What about pensions?” Push for an independently verified Alberta Pension Plan proposal, including costs, benefits, and transition arrangements.
“What about Indigenous treaties?” Establish meaningful government-to-government discussions with Indigenous nations to address treaty rights and constitutional obligations.
“Is independence even legal?” Commission serious constitutional and legal analysis, identifying the actual requirements, obstacles, and possible negotiating pathways.
“What about federal transfers and finances?” Demand transparent financial modelling showing what Alberta would gain, lose, and need to replace.
“What about trade and being landlocked?” Pursue interprovincial trade agreements, transportation access, and legal clarity around existing trade corridors.
“What about federal jurisdiction?” Identify which responsibilities Alberta could assume under existing law and which would require negotiations or constitutional change.
We wouldn’t resolve everything.
But imagine entering the next referendum campaign with several of these questions already investigated, negotiated, or partially resolved.
That’s the advantage of incremental progress.
And there’s another important consideration: vote splitting.
A new independence party running candidates across Alberta could divide the conservative vote and help elect an NDP government.
But what if it contested only five carefully selected constituencies?
That wouldn’t eliminate vote splitting, particularly within those five ridings. However, it would substantially limit the number of constituencies exposed to that risk.
We would need to study the new electoral boundaries, local voting patterns, and candidate viability before deciding where to run.
Still, imagine five dedicated independence MLAs able to negotiate policy commitments in exchange for supporting a minority government.
Not demanding immediate separation.
Not pretending we can overturn the referendum result.
But to advance policies, address concerns, and build a strong foundation for whatever Albertans decide in the future.
We received ~25% support, and nearly 50% in some constituencies.
I still support Alberta independence. I accept the referendum result. And I believe we should seriously consider what comes next.
Perhaps the next step isn’t trying to win the whole province.
Perhaps it’s finding five ridings where we can win a seat and earn a voice.
All Based Upon a Lie
It’s quite incredible that the so-called founding principle, namely, a “Loyalty to a united Canada”, which we now know was the reason that prompted Danielle Smith to run for the UCP, which governs her actions as Premier to this very day, and which has been used by her elected MLAs to guide how they “govern”, was simply not adopted at the Founding General Meeting in 2018!
Was this the understanding of those UCP members when she was elected as Leader and subsequently elected as our Premier?
With that understanding can anybody still say, for example, ‘don’t forget that without Daniele Smith there would be no referendum’ or even to, some extent, that she ‘facilitated’ us getting a question?
Interesting her comment that the unadopted founding principle was supposedly affirmed by those choosing Option 1 in her referendum, which presumably included a wide swath of NDP voters, who are now presumably determining UCP policy. 🤔
Ron Voss retweeted
Welcome to the EU Canada... Paris City Tours youtu.be/_Vy2kqp4alg?si=eZqu… #shouldavoted2alberta
Ron Voss retweeted
I want a leader that is actively and feverishly Alberta first.
Implementing the components of the firewall letter.
Complete Autonomy from canaduh not subjugation.
We voted to end equilization
As a UCP member I want a leadership review.
I vow not to vote for @ABDanielleSmith.
Can’t Give Up the Lie
Although being told it was not the case, Danielle Smith persists in saying that a principle dedicated to Alberta remaining in Canada was one of the founding principles adopted by the membership at the UCP’s Founding General Meeting (FGM) in 2018.
At a recent media scrum, she continued to do so, referencing what appears to be proposal 026 that was among 36 principles that were considered at the FGM. The proposed principle read:
“Loyalty to a united Canada, and a commitment for Alberta to be a Leader in the Canadian federation that constructively defends the best interests of the province and its constitutional sovereignty.”
But as is abundantly clear, proposed principle 026 is not to be found in a document, “Policy Declaration 2018”, which recorded the resolutions that were adopted by the membership, specifically shown here the Statement of Principles adopted by the membership at the Founding General Meeting.
Danielle Smith seems to be adopting former Liberal MP Catherine McKenna’s philosophy that if you tell a big lie and repeat it often enough, people would come to believe it.
