I’ve spent a lot of time thinking about what comes next for the Alberta independence movement. The October 19 referendum demonstrated something important. We built a substantial grassroots movement, but we also saw what happens when that movement goes up against an established political and media apparatus. I believe there are three possible paths forward. 1. Form a new independence party. Some point to Quebec as the model. But Alberta’s political environment is fundamentally different. Quebec has a multiparty political landscape, while Alberta currently functions much more like a two-party system dominated by the UCP and NDP. A new independence party could split the conservative vote across dozens of constituencies. The risk is an NDP government, four years in opposition and potentially no realistic opportunity for another referendum until 2031 or later. 2. Force a UCP leadership change. Even if independence advocates successfully replaced Danielle Smith, what happens next? A potentially bitter leadership contest, a divided UCP and limited time to rebuild unity before the 2027 election. The risk is marching a fractured conservative party into an election against a comparatively united NDP. And even a successful leadership change wouldn’t automatically create the public support necessary to win a referendum. Once again, the potential consequence is an NDP government and years of delay. 3. Build from within the existing conservative coalition. This approach has its own immediate challenge. Premier Smith’s recent statements about maintaining a united pro-Canada position have created a serious disagreement with independence advocates who want to remain active in the UCP. I believe that disagreement needs to be addressed through short-term negotiation and a workable understanding that allows both sides to coexist. There is common ground: maintaining conservative unity and avoiding an NDP government, while allowing independence advocates to continue expressing their views and building public support. That doesn’t require Danielle Smith to endorse independence. Nor should it require independence supporters to abandon their convictions. Meanwhile, the movement can continue growing outside party politics. If Mark Carney’s government fails to address Alberta’s longstanding grievances, that could further change public opinion and the political incentives facing provincial leaders. But the most important part of this strategy is institutionalizing the independence movement. We need more than a large grassroots following. We need sustained influence through UCP memberships, constituency associations, policy conventions, elected representatives, caucus discussions and eventually the machinery of government. That kind of influence takes time to develop. It requires organization, patience and continued public support. One of my biggest takeaways from October 19 is that a future referendum campaign should not depend entirely on grassroots organizations competing against the full weight of established political institutions. The next phase needs to be about building the organizational capacity and institutional relationships that were missing or limited in this campaign. For me, the ultimate objective isn’t simply getting another referendum on the ballot. It’s building a movement capable of winning one. Every strategy should be judged against that objective.

Alberta Conservatives Need to Learn from the Past, which is why I think it's time to further reform the UCP. Alberta conservatives have never been an easy group to unite. We are a coalition of fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, environmental conservatives, libertarians, pragmatists and people who simply want governments to spend responsibly, respect individual freedom and stand up for Alberta. We agree on many of the problems facing our province, but we don't always agree on the solutions, or the path forward. Today, one of the biggest divisions is over Confederation itself. Some Albertans believe Canada can still be reformed and that Alberta's interests can be protected within it. Others, like me, have concluded that the experiment has failed and that we need to consider a fundamentally different future. Both groups have legitimate concerns. But there is one thing we should all be able to agree on: our political organizations must serve the interests of Albertans, not the other way around. It's time to have an honest conversation about reforming the United Conservative Party. The fear of splitting the conservative vote. The most common argument against reform is straightforward. We can't risk splitting the conservative vote and hand the next election to Nenshi and the NDP lunatics. That's a real risk with our first past the post system. In 2015, the Progressive Conservatives and Wildrose ran separate campaigns. The NDP formed government, despite the two conservative parties collectively receiving more than half of the popular vote. Then, in 2019, following their merger, the United Conservative Party retook office. We should learn from that history. But we need to learn the right lesson. The lesson is that conservatives need an effective political organization capable of bringing people together around a common purpose. It is not that one particular party must remain unchanged forever. The merger that created the UCP was an organizational solution to a divison problem. It brought two parties together, but it did not eliminate the differences in political philosophy, priorities and expectations among their supporters. It was a first step. It also did not guarantee that the resulting party would always represent the interests of every group within that coalition. Unity is valuable, but unity without a shared purpose is fragile. If the only argument for keeping the UCP exactly as it is today is the fear of splitting the vote, we have reduced our political strategy to a defensive exercise. We are no longer asking whether our party is delivering results. We are asking only whether changing it might be dangerous. The status quo is not risk-free. There is often a tendency to treat the status quo as the safe option and reform as the risky one. Humans don't liek change...it's just a fact. But maintaining the status quo is also a decision, and decisions have consequences. If a party fails to address the concerns of its supporters, it risks losing their confidence, participation and commitment. Some may disengage. Others may refuse to volunteer, contribute financially or support its candidates. Still others may look for alternatives. That's already happening. UCP membership is down from the historic high of 110,000 members to only 40,000. We should not assume that every dissatisfied conservative will automatically return to the UCP when an election approaches. Nor should we assume that every voter who leaves the UCP will vote for the NDP. Voter behaviour is more complicated than that. My question is whether the party can maintain a broad and durable coalition while continuing to deliver meaningful results for its supporters. If it can, there is a strong case for keeping it. If it can't, then reform deserves serious consideration. Here in Alberta, conservatives don't treat political parties as permanent institution that voters are obligated to support regardless of their performance. The engineer in me thinks of it as a vehicle for achieving political objectives. When the vehicle needs repairs, we repair it. When its direction needs correcting, we correct it. Reform before replacement. There is a practical reason to consider reforming the UCP before creating an entirely new party. The UCP already has an established organization, constituency associations, experienced volunteers, fundraising capacity, candidates and a recognizable political identity. These are valuable assets built through years of effort. Why discard an existing political structure before making a serious attempt to change it? Reform offers a way to preserve what works while addressing what does not. That means creating a party that is more responsive to its membership, more transparent in its decision-making and more accountable for delivering on its commitments. It means allowing competing conservative philosophies to be debated honestly rather than expecting everyone to accept a single approach simply because it is the established one. It also means recognizing that conservatives who disagree about Confederation are not necessarily enemies. They may disagree about the ultimate destination while sharing many immediate objectives. This is not an argument for watering down every position until nobody disagrees. It is an argument for building a political organization in which differences can be addressed openly and decisions can be made with a clear understanding of what members actually want. We're close to that ideal, but we need a little more work. We need to stop confusing loyalty with results. One of the greatest obstacles to political reform is the understandable reluctance to abandon something we have invested so much time and energy in building. This happens all the time, not just in politics. Many conservatives worked hard to unite the Progressive Conservatives and Wildrose. They volunteered, donated money, knocked on doors and campaigned for the UCP. They did so because they believed a united conservative party could deliver better government. That effort was not wasted. The merger addressed a genuine organizational problem. But the fact that a decision was right at the time does not mean it must remain right forever. Our loyalty should be to the principles and objectives that brought us together, not to the permanent preservation of a particular political structure. The purpose of a political party is to serve its supporters. The purpose of its supporters is not to serve the party. If we cannot question our own organization, we have abandoned the very principles of accountability that we expect from government. What should reform look like? Reform should not simply mean replacing one leader with another and carrying on as before. Nor should it be a vehicle for one faction to impose its priorities on everyone else. It should begin with an honest assessment of what Alberta conservatives want to achieve. Our goal is not just to keep the NDP out of power. That requires asking some difficult questions: - What does fiscal responsibility mean in practice, and how should government be held accountable for it? - How should Alberta defend its constitutional jurisdiction and economic interests? - Which problems can realistically be addressed through negotiations and reforms within Confederation? - What should happen if those efforts fail to deliver meaningful results? - How can the party better represent its members and hold its leadership accountable? - What common objectives can unite conservatives who disagree on social policy, environmental issues and Alberta's constitutional future? - and more... A serious reform process would establish clear priorities, measurable objectives and a transparent mechanism for assessing progress. It would give members a meaningful role in shaping policy and determining the party's direction. It would also establish a process for reconsidering the strategy if the desired results do not materialize, and pivoting. What about those who believe Confederation cannot be saved? This is perhaps the most difficult issue facing Alberta conservatives right now. Some believe that the answer lies in electing better provincial governments, negotiating more effectively with Ottawa and pursuing greater provincial autonomy within Canada. Others believe that decades of conflict demonstrate fundamental structural problems that cannot be resolved through another round of negotiations. These positions cannot simply be dismissed. A reformed UCP would need to acknowledge the disagreement rather than pretend it does not exist. It should distinguish between achievable near-term objectives, longer-term constitutional reforms and the different views members hold about Alberta's ultimate future. That does not mean every position must become official party policy. It means members deserve an honest debate about the alternatives, the evidence supporting them and the consequences of pursuing each course. If the party's membership concludes that Confederation can be repaired, that position should rest on a credible strategy (not just "I think I can succeed where everyone else failed") and demonstrable progress. If members conclude that it cannot, they should be able to discuss the implications without being dismissed merely for questioning the established approach. The important thing is to replace assumptions with evidence and indefinite promises with measurable objectives. Again, that's the engineer in me speaking. Reform does not mean ignoring electoral reality. Nobody should pretend that changing a party's direction is without risk. Internal reform can fail. It can create divisions. A new party can split votes and produce unintended consequences. Reforming the UCP offers an opportunity to address dissatisfaction without immediately creating a competing organization. It allows conservatives to test whether the existing party can become more responsive before concluding that a separate party is necessary. There is no need to treat every disagreement as a reason to split. Equally, there is no reason to treat the possibility of a split as grounds for refusing to examine alternatives. The choice we face. Alberta conservatives have already demonstrated that they can overcome their differences to build a unified party. We should take pride in that accomplishment. The circumstances have changed. The debate over Confederation has intensified. Expectations have evolved, and many of us are questioning whether the political arrangements we once supported can still deliver the outcomes we want. We can treat the existing structure as something that must be preserved at almost any cost, hoping that the current approach will eventually produce the results we seek..... Or we can recognize that a political organization must continually earn the confidence of its supporters, and undertake a serious effort to reform it. Reform does not guarantee success. But neither does the status quo. The difference is that reform creates an opportunity to identify what is not working, correct it and establish a better path forward without immediately abandoning the organization we have already built. We should learn from 2015 that divisions can have serious electoral consequences. We should also learn from the creation of the UCP that political structures can change when circumstances demand it. The goal should not be to keep the UCP alive at all costs. The goal should be to build the most effective political organization possible to serve Alberta and its people. It requires conservatives to recognize that disagreement is not betrayal, that reform is not necessarily division, and that loyalty does not mean accepting the status quo indefinitely. Before we abandon the UCP and start over, we should make a genuine effort to reform it. And before we reject reform out of fear, we should ask ourselves one final question: If we are unwilling to change our approach when we believe it is no longer delivering the results we need, what exactly are we trying to preserve? Cheers my friends.

I'm 44. Grew up in rural Alberta. Joined the RCMP and moved away. Worked in every part of the Country. Canada is beautiful, but Canadians keep voting for our own self destruction. I don't want to keep paying to be hated. Voting option 2.

“This referendum has exposed something larger than the independence question. It has shown Albertans what happens when ordinary citizens challenge an entrenched political order.” MACLEOD: Ordinary Albertans versus the political machine — the travesty of Alberta’s referendum westernstandard.news/opinion… #

I am in my 40s. I’m a fourth-generation Alberta grain farmer. My roots are planted deep in Alberta soil. So is my hope for its future. I’ve spent my life growing food, teaching children, and raising my own. I care deeply about the Alberta they’re going to inherit. I believe in freedom, private property rights, personal responsibility, and the idea that a hard day’s work should give you a fair shot at building a good life. I don’t believe the generations who came before me worked this hard, sacrificed this much, and built this province so that future generations would have fewer opportunities and less freedom. I’ve watched Alberta spend decades trying to secure a fairer relationship within Canada, fighting for greater control over our resources, our economic opportunities, our constitutional rights, and our freedoms. I’ve watched governments come and go, promises made and broken, while the same disputes with Ottawa remain unresolved. I don’t want my children fighting the same battles my grandparents fought. I believe Alberta should have the opportunity to negotiate its future from a position of strength, with a genuine alternative to the status quo. I want the next generation to inherit the freedom to build something better. I’ll be voting Option 2 on October 19.

🇨🇦What is Alberta?🇨🇦 I was looking at the questions on the referendum ballot, and one of them asks whether Alberta should remain a province of Canada. I found myself asking: were we ever really a province? I say no. We're a territory with a participation ribbon. When did we become a province? Meaning equal to all others. Not just equal in law, but equal in practice. Not in 1905, when Ottawa carved us out of the Northwest Territories without asking the people who lived here. Territorial Premier Frederick Haultain had proposed one large province called Buffalo, covering what became Alberta and Saskatchewan, arguing it would give the West a voice in Ottawa. Wilfrid Laurier rejected it and split the territory into two smaller provinces instead, two that would be easier to control than one that could rival Ontario. Not in 1982, when the Constitution was rewritten and the one chance to fix the imbalance came and went. Lougheed won a few concessions, sure, but the Senate stayed stacked, the Commons stayed tilted, and the amendment formula locked it all in. The amendment formula makes it permanent. Most changes need seven provinces with half the population, but the Senate, the Commons, and the Supreme Court require all ten provinces to agree. Sp the very things that keep Alberta on the outside are the things that can never be fixed without the provinces that benefit from them agreeing to give that up, rendering Alberta's problems in Confederation permanently unfixable. If that's the way it is, then perhaps the way forward for Alberta is "so be it," because we were always on the outside anyways. A couple historical quotes tell the story. "The people of the North West are allowed but a degree more control of their affairs than the serfs of Siberia." Frank Oliver, Edmonton Bulletin, 1885. "We all desire, every patriotic Canadian desires, that the great trade of the prairie shall go to enrich our own people in the east, to build up the factories and the workshops of eastern Canada, and to contribute in every legitimate way to its prosperity." Clifford Sifton, Minister of the Interior, 1904. For those who are unaware or curious, start here: PEI has about 183,000 people and 4 senators, roughly 46,000 people per senator. Alberta has about 5 million people and 6 senators, roughly 850,000 people per senator. A resident of PEI gets about 18 times the senatorial representation of an Albertan. Our vote rarely matters at all, and everything is dictated to us from the East, who doesn't understand us. We were never let in, yet we are told to sit here, close our mouths, and accept our situation in a nation that has never allowed us a full say in our own affairs. Then we are called vicious names and traitors by our own countrymen for simply wanting change and to preserve our future, in a post-national state that refuses to answer to us. And in this post-national state with no core identity, what is it that we're supposed to identify with? It should also be noted that it was two Liberal judges appointed by David Lametti that squashed the separation question and turned it into a referendum on a referendum. You see, it's not all about pipelines. Alberta's historical grievances go back more than a hundred and forty years. It didn't all start in 1905. Some things never change, I suppose... until you change them. Vote option 2 on October 19th. #AlbertaIndependence 🤠

Canada in 2026: a managerial society where government has a say in everything. Property is a privilege, taxes are inescapable, and personal choices are dictated. StateOfOurNation.ca Gala 2026, Burlington, ON #Canada #StateOfOurNation #Gala2026

Please read, mark, learn, inwardly digest and share as widely as possible. A new version of chaos on the horizon to force martial law and cancel the election the-network-uk.org @KerryHopkinsTV @CryptoRichYT @the_irascible @TRobinsonNewEra @MontgomeryToms @joerogan @elonmusk @RealDonKeith @danwootton @Iromg

Victor Davis Hanson lays out that no one in America told Canada to import the equivalent of 45% of its population from non-assimilating sources, abandon its fossil fuels and pipelines, chase solar power in a frigid climate, accept the lowest GDP growth among industrial Western nations, or accept being $30–40k poorer per person/family than Americans. Nor did anyone force Canada to lead the world in assisted suicide as a cost-saving measure. Those choices—and the resulting inability to fund open borders, defense, or fair trade—came from Canadian leadership, not from Washington.

Do you wish Canada had a prime minister who had the courage to speak TRUTH like this?

In response to MP Dean Allison’s question about why so many Western countries experienced enormous increases in immigration at roughly the same time, I decided to do a little digging. And there’s something I think Canadians should read for themselves. In 2018, 152 countries adopted the UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration. Canada was one of them. It contains 23 objectives. Objective 5 calls for enhancing pathways for regular migration, including adapting those pathways with a view to “expanding and diversifying” them. Canada later described itself as a “champion country” of the Compact and has continued participating in its implementation and review. But Dean asked a very good question. When governments across multiple countries begin moving in similar directions at roughly the same time, surely one of the first places we should look is at the international frameworks they agreed to. No speculation required. It’s public. Read it. UN Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration A/RES/73/195 documents.un.org/doc/undoc/g…