Former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper cautioned against the prospect of Alberta separation in a column Friday, writing that even voting just to “send a message” would represent a fraught approach.
Those pushing for separation know this. They’re looking to benefit themselves not Albertans.
Harper is smart enough to know that the entire case for separatism is built on lies and ommissions of relevant details, but instead of using his influence to call them out he’s legitimizing the question by avoiding the same truths the separatists glaze over.
He’s in league with them just unwilling to stand with them in public.
If even Stephen Harper thinks it won’t affect the people bankrolling him - nor the people of Alberta - then it’s next-level bad.
Did they name the Landfill after him as hoped?
He’s a reform party architect masquerading as a federalist. This is his fault.
Reform party =/= Separatist party. He’s been advocating for more autonomy for Alberta, not Alberta separation. Come Monday you’ll get to see what an actual separatist party looks like.
He is one of the voices that fueled this fire in previous decades, and now he is speaking against it?
That’s like Sam Altman warning about the risks of AI…
Waitasec. When did he explicitly advocate for separation? He advocated for more autonomy, which is not unprecedented (see also: Quebec), but I’ve always seen him as pushing for more freedom within confederation, not freedom from confederation. Happy to be corrected.
When did he explicitly advocate for separation?
That’s not what I was referring to.
He stored the fires of western alienation and anger at Ottawa.
Eh. I’d say he had help. Trudeau senior wasn’t exactly Alberta’s friend. Not to mention the 90’s were all about Quebec.
You have to do a lot more gymnastics to put the blame of the current state of Alberta separatism on those two things than Stephen Harper’s actions and effect on conservatives across the country.
He brought the Reform Party into the Conservatives. That’s why the crazies seem so loud nowadays.
He also lead the IDU and works for the UCP controlling the thing he hates most since he was young: Alberta pension.
And he did so because they had no possibility of remaining a relevant party without servicing their crazies a little more, just like Reagan did and Bush escalated, bringing us this.
Or Jason Kenney with the Wildrose.
I mean, sure. But that’s not exactly advocating for Alberta separation. And if memory serves, a guy named Peter won the PC leadership and then promptly folded like a cheap shirt.
Harper work for Big Oil Canada, what he is saying is « don’t go pwease, my boss will loose their government subsidies oil field »
I mean, they shouldn’t leave, it benefits no one but given his neoliberal background, Harper’s motives are always suspect
He didn’t anticipate that the leopards would eat his country.
Separation would bring no benefit, but separatism may have had a hand in the next pipeline being declared in the “national interest”. That’s a benefit for somebody.
I mean anything’s possible, but when did the government start talking about this pipeline and when was the referendum announced? Separation or not, we’ve needed to reduce our dependence on the US since the start of Trump 2.0. We actually should have started before that.
GenX here. A very tiny subset of us were screaming not to do the FTA, way back in the 90s.
Not so tiny.
I had a “Free Canada, Trade Mulroney” shirt. Smaller text suggested we would accept the return of Michael J. Fox in trade.
That would have been the ideal, yes. Also acceptable: not being lazy and using that as a crutch for 30 freaking years.
I don’t remember things around a western pipeline really picking up until Carney and Smith signed their MOU, and separatism was definitely a thing before that. The referendum being announcing just changed the appeasment from trying to avoid a referendum to trying to get a good result from the referendum.
