https://www.westernstandard.news/opinion/macleod-dani-bucks-and-political-drift-why-smith-is-losing-support/74399
DS very quickly needs to pivot and read the people in her room. We are not sheep that can be told what to think.
In fact we are the very opposite. If she doesn’t know that then she is big trouble:
“There is an old Alberta rule in politics: if you try to stand in the middle of the road long enough, sooner or later you get run over by both lanes of traffic. Premier Danielle Smith appears to be testing that theory in real time.

She is not unpopular with everyone. The United Conservative Party (UCP) still has a durable rural base, the NDP has hardly become Alberta's natural governing party, and many Albertans remain broadly sympathetic to Smith’s frustration with Ottawa. But sympathy is not the same thing as confidence. Increasingly, Albertans seem to be asking a very practical question: what exactly does Danielle Smith believe, and is she prepared to act on it? The answer has become less clear by the week.

Recent polling has been brutal. Angus Reid reported Smith’s approval at 39%, her lowest mark as Premier, after weeks of confusion over the independence referendum. Ipsos found 56% of Albertans disapprove of her performance, while 58% disapprove of her handling of the Alberta independence issue. More damaging than the raw numbers is the reason behind them: Albertans on both sides increasingly believe she is playing them.

Federalists suspect she is quietly fuelling independence to hold her UCP base together. Independence supporters suspect she is quietly working to smother the movement before it becomes too serious. That is quite an achievement. It takes rare political choreography to make both sides think you are betraying them at the same time.

For many Alberta independence supporters, the concern is not merely that Smith opposes independence. She is entitled to her position. The concern is that she appears to be using the machinery of government to frame the question before Albertans have even had a fair debate.

Her most striking intervention was the claim that Alberta independence could cost as much as $400 billion, plus annual costs of up to $50 billion. That number landed like a thunderclap, which was clearly the point. It was not presented as a careful, line-by-line fiscal analysis. It was presented as a political fire alarm. Smith’s estimate reportedly included Alberta’s share of the national debt, NATO obligations, armed forces, and broad transition costs. But lumping every conceivable liability into one frightening number while downplaying the revenue Alberta currently sends to Ottawa is not analysis. It is messaging.

And Albertans should be especially skeptical of government messaging when the government has already chosen the conclusion it prefers.

Yes, Alberta needs serious analysis before any independence vote. Of course, it does. Nobody should pretend that building a sovereign country is as simple as changing the flag outside the legislature and ordering new passport stamps. Borders, defence, pensions, debt allocation, trade, currency, policing, citizenship, treaties, and federal assets all require serious conversation. I have written on that subject previously.

But that conversation must be honest. It must include costs and savings. It must include liabilities and assets. It must include transition expenses and the enormous annual fiscal room that could be created if Alberta stopped sending tens of billions of dollars to Ottawa each year. A study that treats independence as one giant invoice, while treating Confederation as free, is not a study. It is a campaign pamphlet.

Smith has now appointed a panel to review the costs of Alberta leaving Canada, with the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy tasked to conduct the report and an advisory panel including figures such as Jack Mintz, Janice MacKinnon, Trevor Tombe, and Ted Morton. All of whom are intelligent, experienced, and well-credentialed. But the panel’s composition still raises a fair question: is this a genuine open inquiry, or a managed exercise designed to validate the premier’s preferred position?

Albertans have seen this movie before. Panels can be useful. They can also be political shock absorbers. Governments appoint them when they want to look thoughtful, buy time, and steer public opinion without appearing to do so. The more important the question, the more essential it is that Albertans ask who is writing the terms of reference, what assumptions are being used, what numbers are excluded, and whether independence advocates with serious fiscal arguments are being given equal standing.

Smith’s challenge is that she came to office speaking the language of Alberta autonomy. Many Albertans believed she understood the central grievance: Alberta does the work, ships the energy, pays the bills, absorbs the abuse, and is then lectured by Ottawa about morality, climate, speech, pipelines, firearms, taxation, and national unity. For years, she sounded as if she clearly understood that Confederation had become a bad bargain for Alberta.

Now, when Albertans finally push the issue to a democratic vote, she sounds less like the champion of Alberta leverage and more like Ottawa’s risk manager.

Then came the “Dani Bucks.”

Smith announced a one-time $100 Alberta Energy Rebate for eligible adults, framed as relief from high fuel and living costs. The province says nearly 3.4 million Albertans may qualify. But the comparison to Ralph Klein’s “Ralph Bucks” is unavoidable, and it is not flattering.

Klein’s $400 prosperity bonus in 2006 was controversial, and many people — including Peter Lougheed — argued that the money should have gone into long-term savings. But Klein at least made the payment from a position of strength. Alberta was debt-free and sitting on a massive oil-fuelled surplus. You can disagree with Ralph’s choice, but the man was handing out cash after the mortgage was paid.

Smith is doing something very different. Alberta today is not debt-free. The province is carrying tens of billions in debt, with the Canadian Taxpayers Federation’s Alberta debt clock showing about $91 billion and Budget 2026 showing total provincial debt well above that. Alberta’s own budget documents and independent analysts project large deficits ahead. Alberta is forecasting a $9.4 billion deficit for 2026–27, largely because lower oil prices hammered expected resource revenues.

“Ralph Bucks” were a questionable dividend from a cash surplus. “Dani Bucks” looks more like a rebate from a government that has not balanced its own books.

That distinction matters to conservative Albertans. Fiscal conservatism is not supposed to mean “send me a cheque when the polling gets uncomfortable.” It is supposed to mean fiscal discipline, restraint, debt reduction, low taxes, and a government that understands resource booms are temporary blessings, not permanent operating plans.

The irony is difficult to miss. Smith warns Albertans that independence would be fiscally reckless, then turns around and offers a small cash payment funded by a treasury already deep in deficit and heavily dependent on oil price volatility. Alberta’s current deficit is not being rescued by brilliant fiscal management. It was temporarily helped by higher oil prices, including price spikes tied to the conflict involving Iran. That is not a budget strategy.

This is why Smith’s popularity is slipping. It is not one issue. It is the accumulation of contradictions. She speaks like a sovereignist but governs like a cautious federalist. She criticizes Ottawa’s fiscal irresponsibility while borrowing and rebating at home. She promises Albertans a say, then appears to shape the process to make one answer look reckless before the debate has even begun. She invokes Ralph Klein while ignoring the most important part of Klein’s fiscal legacy: he paid down the debt first.

For Alberta independence supporters, the lesson is simple. No premier, no panel, and no carefully staged referendum process can substitute for public persuasion. Albertans need facts, not fear. They need a fair comparison between the costs of independence and of remaining in Canada. They need to know what Alberta sends to Ottawa, what comes back, what powers would return home, what risks must be managed, and what opportunities sovereignty would create.

Many Albertans increasingly see the Premier trying to contain a movement she once helped inspire. That is a dangerous place for any Alberta leader to stand. This province has always respected straight talk, even when it disagrees. What it does not respect is being managed.

If Danielle Smith wants to argue for Canada, she should do so honestly. If she wants to argue for Alberta sovereignty within Canada, she needs to show what Ottawa has actually conceded. And if she wants to warn Albertans about independence, she should bring numbers that can survive scrutiny in daylight, not just headlines.

Because Alberta’s future should be decided by Albertans; clearly, directly, and with all the facts on the table.”