The BC Conservatives have a serious problem. But the Oremire of BC, David Eby shouldn’t start measuring the curtains for another majority just yet.

By David Chan | The Current

There is a basic lesson taught in business school that political parties occasionally forget: rapid growth can kill you almost as effectively as failure.

Growth creates complexity.

Complexity exposes weak management.

Weak management turns what looked like momentum into chaos.

Welcome to the Conservative Party of British Columbia in 2026.

When we last checked in, there were warning signs scattered around the organization. A few loose tires in the field, perhaps, but nothing you would necessarily describe as a full-blown fire.

That distinction is getting considerably harder to make.

Kerry-Lynne Findlay narrowly won the Conservative leadership on May 30 after a bruising contest against Caroline Elliott. What followed was supposed to be the relatively routine work of rebuilding a caucus, sharpening the party’s message and preparing an Official Opposition that came remarkably close to forming government in 2024.

Instead, British Columbians have been treated to one departure, controversy and internal dispute after another.

Nine MLAs have left the Conservative caucus in the recent exodus alone. The party elected 44 MLAs in 2024. It now has 28. Five former Conservatives have announced plans to operate together under a new provincial party, pitching themselves as a “stable, serious alternative” to both the NDP and the current Conservative leadership. (CityNews Vancouver)

Think about those numbers for a moment.

This wasn’t a fringe party winning a couple of accidental seats.

The BC Conservatives came within striking distance of government less than two years ago.

Today, the conversation is increasingly about whether the party can keep itself together.

That’s quite a turnaround.

And it would be a mistake to interpret all of it simply as another fight between moderates and conservatives.

Something bigger is happening.

This Looks More Like a Management Problem

Political observers naturally want to interpret everything through ideology.

Moderates versus populists.

Establishment conservatives versus grassroots conservatives.

Federal-style Conservatives versus the old BC Liberal coalition.

There is certainly some of that happening.

But ideology doesn’t adequately explain the scale of the dysfunction.

The more immediate problem facing Findlay is one familiar to anyone who has worked inside a fast-growing company: the organization expanded far faster than its internal systems.

The Conservatives scaled before they institutionalized.

In 2023, the party was effectively an insurgency.

By October 2024, it had become the Official Opposition and nearly formed government.

That’s extraordinary growth.

But gaining customers — or voters — is not the same thing as building an organization capable of serving them.

BC United’s collapse handed the Conservatives an enormous political opportunity. Voters who wanted the NDP gone consolidated behind John Rustad’s party because it suddenly became the only realistic vehicle available.

But those voters didn’t necessarily become ideological Conservatives overnight.

Neither did every candidate.

What the party assembled was an anti-NDP coalition.

That’s different from building a Conservative institution.

And now the difference matters.

A mature political organization needs candidate vetting, caucus discipline, leadership structures, professional communications, policy development, dispute-resolution mechanisms and experienced people capable of telling the leader something he or she does not want to hear.

Most importantly, it needs a culture capable of disagreement.

Because any organization large enough to govern British Columbia will contain people who disagree with each other.

That’s not a design flaw.

That’s democracy.

Nine Departures Aren’t Ideological Discipline

Findlay has a legitimate argument available to her.

Political parties should stand for something.

A caucus assembled at extraordinary speed was inevitably going to contain people with very different political backgrounds.

Some came from the BC Liberals.

Others were populists.

Some were traditional conservatives.

Others primarily wanted David Eby’s NDP defeated.

A leader is entitled to establish direction.

But there is a difference between creating ideological coherence and triggering organizational collapse.

Nine departures in a matter of weeks is a lot of coherence.

At some point, management has to enter the conversation.

The MLAs who left have offered different explanations. They have raised concerns about staffing decisions, caucus relations, ideological tests, leadership style and Findlay’s judgment.

Scott McInnis described the party as becoming an “exclusive private club” more concerned with ideological credentials than building the broad coalition required to govern.

Other departing MLAs raised concerns about reported connections involving senior appointees and Alberta separatist politics. Findlay herself has not advocated Alberta separatism, and it would be unfair to label her a separatist because of people around her.

But political leadership includes judgment about personnel.

Who gets hired matters.

Who gets fired matters.

Who gets invited into the room matters.

Who leaves the room matters even more.

When one employee quits, perhaps the employee is the problem.

When nine do, shareholders generally start asking questions about management.

Then Came the Abbotsford-Mission Mess

Findlay still doesn’t hold a seat in the legislature.

That problem appeared to be solved when Abbotsford-Mission MLA Reann Gasper resigned, clearing the way for Findlay to run in the September 26 by-election.

Gasper subsequently became Findlay’s deputy chief of staff. (Elections BC)

Legally, those facts alone establish nothing improper.

Politically, however, they are awkward.

The situation became considerably more serious when former Conservative MLA Ian Paton alleged he had been offered a paid adviser position if he resigned his Delta South seat so Findlay could run there.

Paton said the RCMP subsequently contacted him for an interview. The RCMP said it was aware of the allegations but, according to reporting, would not confirm or deny an investigation unless charges were laid.

Findlay has denied offering jobs in exchange for resignations and called the allegations baseless. No finding of wrongdoing has been made. (Conservative Party of British Columbia)

Those qualifications matter.

But politics isn’t a courtroom.

There is a difference between proving criminal wrongdoing and creating an impression of disorder.

Findlay desperately needs to move the conversation back to affordability, health care, housing, crime, taxes and the economy.

Instead, reporters keep asking about her caucus.

That’s a strategic disaster.

The Product Still Has a Market

Here is where the NDP should resist becoming too pleased with itself.

The collapse occurring across the aisle does not mean British Columbians have suddenly rediscovered their love for David Eby’s government.

Those are two entirely separate conclusions.

Recent polling has demonstrated just how volatile the province remains.

A Research Co. survey in June had the Conservatives and NDP tied at 42 per cent among decided voters. That same poll found 47 per cent of British Columbians believed the province needed a centre-right alternative to the two dominant parties. (Research Co.)

That should tell us something important.

There remains a very large market for change.

British Columbians still live with extraordinary housing costs.

Patients still struggle to access timely health care.

Families still worry about affordability.

Communities remain concerned about public safety, addiction and street disorder.

Businesses continue to complain about taxes, regulation and an economy that feels increasingly difficult to navigate.

Resource development, Indigenous reconciliation, land-use uncertainty and investment remain enormous questions.

None of that disappeared because Conservative MLAs began resigning.

David Eby’s fundamental political vulnerabilities haven’t vanished.

His opposition has simply become significantly less competent at exploiting them.

That’s not an NDP revival.

It’s an opposition failure.

There is a difference.

The New Party Could Lose Everywhere and Still Win

The creation of another centre-right party makes the mathematics even more dangerous for Findlay.

It doesn’t necessarily have to replace the Conservatives.

In fact, it could fail spectacularly by conventional measures and still transform British Columbia politics.

Under first-past-the-post, a new centre-right party polling seven or eight per cent province-wide could win very few seats.

But if those votes are concentrated among people who otherwise would have voted Conservative, it could change dozens of riding outcomes.

Imagine a riding where the NDP receives 40 per cent.

The Conservatives receive 38.

A new centre-right party takes 12.

Everyone else splits the remainder.

The new party loses badly.

The Conservatives lose narrowly.

The NDP wins comfortably.

Repeat that across enough suburban Lower Mainland, Fraser Valley, Interior and Island seats and David Eby could emerge with a significantly larger majority despite receiving little more support than before.

That is Findlay’s nightmare.

The biggest threat isn’t necessarily being replaced.

It’s being divided.

British Columbia’s political history is full of examples of what happens when the non-NDP coalition fractures.

Social Credit filled that role.

Then the BC Liberals did.

BC United attempted to continue it and collapsed.

The Conservatives inherited the market almost overnight.

Now they appear determined to reopen it.

It would be an extremely British Columbian outcome if the Conservative Party eventually succeeded in recreating the BC Liberals by driving enough former BC Liberals out of the Conservative Party.

Governing Requires People You Disagree With

This gets to the central question confronting the Conservatives.

Do they want to be a movement or a government?

Movements prize ideological consistency.

Governments build coalitions.

A movement asks: Are you one of us?

A successful political party asks: Can we work together?

Those sound similar until an organization becomes large.

Then they become dramatically different.

British Columbia isn’t Alabama.

It isn’t Alberta either.

It is a complicated province containing resource towns, union households, suburban commuters, affluent urban professionals, farmers, newcomers, First Nations communities, small-business owners and environmentally minded voters.

No centre-right party wins here by appealing exclusively to one faction.

The old BC Liberals understood that, sometimes awkwardly.

Their coalition contained federal Liberals, federal Conservatives, business conservatives, social moderates and people who simply wanted to keep the NDP out.

It wasn’t particularly elegant.

But it won elections.

Politics is ultimately a market-share business.

You can have the most loyal 28 per cent of customers imaginable and still lose to someone with 42.

Purity is considerably easier in opposition.

Government requires addition.

Abbotsford-Mission Is Now More Than a By-Election

Findlay’s September 26 contest in Abbotsford-Mission is therefore becoming a referendum on more than the local candidates.

It is the first significant market test of her leadership.

Elections BC has confirmed five candidates, including Findlay for the Conservatives and former agriculture minister Pam Alexis for the NDP. (Elections BC)

A strong Findlay victory changes the conversation.

She could reasonably argue that disgruntled MLAs and political insiders are mistaking their own unhappiness for public sentiment.

Winning decisively would put her inside the legislature, give the party a badly needed positive story and potentially stop the bleeding.

But if Abbotsford-Mission becomes unexpectedly close, things get uncomfortable.

If she loses, they become existential.

This is territory where a Conservative leader should be competitive.

The question is whether voters see the recent chaos as Victoria inside baseball or as evidence of something larger.

We’ll find out soon.

David Eby Shouldn’t Celebrate Yet

If I were advising the NDP, I wouldn’t campaign on the assumption that British Columbians have returned home.

They haven’t.

At least there is little evidence they have.

The Conservatives’ implosion provides Eby with something more valuable than renewed affection: time.

Time to repair weaknesses.

Time to improve delivery.

Time to remind British Columbians that whatever frustrations they have with his government, the alternative has to look capable of governing.

That final point may be the most important.

Opposition parties sometimes believe elections are referendums exclusively on governments.

They’re not.

Eventually voters walk into the booth and compare alternatives.

In 2024, enough British Columbians looked at the Conservatives and decided they were prepared to take the risk.

By 2026, some may be asking a different question:

Can these people manage themselves?

Because if you can’t manage 40 MLAs, voters are entitled to wonder how you’ll manage a $90-billion provincial government.

That’s the problem Findlay has to solve.

Not whether she is conservative enough.

Not whether the people leaving are moderates.

Not whether the media is being unfair.

Competence.

Stability.

Judgment.

Execution.

The boring things.

In business, those are often the things that determine whether a promising company becomes an institution or a cautionary tale.

Politics isn’t that different.

The 2024 election appeared to settle the biggest strategic question on British Columbia’s centre-right.

BC United was finished.

The Conservatives had inherited the coalition.

The NDP finally had one clear opponent.

Less than two years later, we’re back where we started.

The anti-NDP vote is still there.

The dissatisfaction is still there.

The opportunity is still there.

What isn’t clear anymore is who owns it.

And that may be the most remarkable part of the Conservative collapse.

They aren’t losing the market because British Columbians stopped wanting an alternative to the NDP.

They’re risking losing it because they have once again given those voters a reason to go shopping.

David Chan is our newest younger analytical reporter/commentator who looks at politics through management, economics, demographics and electoral strategy.

B.C. Is Politically Homeless — Can a New Party Finally Give Voters Somewhere to Go?

The collapse of the B.C. Conservatives has opened the door to another centre-right party. But changing the name on the sign will not be enough.

By Chad Dashly | The Current

British Columbia is not short of political parties. It is short of competent government.

Families are struggling with the cost of housing, groceries and taxes. Patients are waiting too long for care. Resource communities are watching forestry jobs disappear. Small businesses are buried under costs and regulation. Meanwhile, the provincial government is forecasting a record $13.3-billion deficit.

Against that backdrop, the Official Opposition has chosen to fight itself.

Nine MLAs have left the B.C. Conservative caucus since Kerry-Lynne Findlay narrowly won the leadership in May. Five of them — Peter Milobar, Ian Paton, Rosalyn Bird, Bruce Banman and Áʼa꞉líya Warbus — are now working together to establish a new provincial party.

The group intends to have the still-unnamed party registered before the legislature returns on October 5. Milobar is acting as interim leader, and the five MLAs plan to hold an internal leadership vote and seek official third-party status. Their stated priorities include affordability, health care, taxation, resource development, the economy, and land and property rights. (Global News)

Those are the right subjects. Whether these MLAs have the discipline and courage to do anything meaningful about them is another question.

The formation of this party is not simply another episode in Victoria’s endless game of musical chairs. It reflects something much bigger: thousands of British Columbians no longer believe either major party speaks for them.

The NDP has been in power long enough to own the condition of the province. It can blame Ottawa, Donald Trump, global uncertainty or the weather, but eventually a government must be judged by results.

On affordability, health care, public safety and fiscal management, those results are not good enough.

Even the government’s own budget acknowledges that British Columbians are stretched by the cost of living and that the province faces serious fiscal pressure. Budget 2026 nevertheless commits B.C. to years of deficits while taxpayer-supported debt continues to climb. (B.C. Budget 2026)

Government spending is not inherently bad. Governments must build hospitals, schools, roads and other essential infrastructure. But record spending accompanied by deteriorating services is not an accomplishment. It is a warning.

The B.C. Conservatives should be exploiting that vulnerability. Instead, they have spent the summer demonstrating that they cannot manage their own caucus.

Findlay inherited a party that needed healing after a bruising leadership race. What it received was more division, resignations and public accusations. Senior party officials departed. MLAs walked away. The organization that came within a whisker of forming government in 2024 has been reduced from 44 elected members to 28.

That is not renewal. It is political self-destruction.

The new party believes it can provide a home for voters who are tired of the NDP but cannot support the direction of the B.C. Conservatives. Ian Paton used precisely that language when he said the goal was to give politically homeless British Columbians somewhere to go.

There is undoubtedly an opening. But there is also a trap.

British Columbia has seen this movie before. Social Credit collapsed. The B.C. Liberals assembled a broad free-enterprise coalition, governed for 16 years, renamed themselves BC United and then vanished from the electoral map. The Conservatives surged into the vacuum, only to begin tearing themselves apart almost immediately.

Another new logo, another slogan and another collection of familiar political faces will not be enough.

If this new party wants to survive, it must clearly explain why it exists.

Is it a centrist version of the B.C. Conservatives? Is it BC United with a fresh coat of paint? Is it a traditional free-enterprise coalition? Or is it simply a temporary shelter for MLAs who no longer want to sit under Findlay?

Voters deserve a straight answer.

The party must also resist the temptation to define itself only by what it is against. Saying it is not the NDP and not Kerry-Lynne Findlay is not a platform.

It needs a serious plan to control spending without gutting essential services. It needs a resource strategy that gets forestry, mining, energy and agriculture moving again. It needs credible answers on housing, crime, addiction and health-care access. It must defend property rights while building practical, respectful relationships with Indigenous communities.

Above all, it must show discipline.

British Columbians are exhausted by political theatre. They do not need another party built around personalities, grudges or leadership ambitions. They need adults who can sit around a table, disagree privately, reach decisions and then move forward together.

The opportunity facing Milobar and his colleagues is real. So is the risk.

A divided centre-right could split the opposition vote and hand the NDP another term. But a credible, practical and disciplined new party could also force every party in the province to raise its game.

That would be good for British Columbia.

The next election should not be a contest over which party frightens voters the least. It should be a serious debate about how to restore affordability, rebuild the economy, deliver dependable public services and bring basic accountability back to Victoria.

British Columbia does not need another political club.

It needs a government-in-waiting.

The new party now has an opportunity to prove it can become one.

Rethinking Weekly Dinner Rotations

Philip Wolf, editor for PQB News and the Vancouver Island Free Daily, is reflecting on why certain affordable and delicious dishes rarely make it onto the regular family menu.

After finishing two cobs of corn during a recent dinner, Wolf noted that while corn on the cob is easy to prepare, budget-friendly, and accessible throughout the year, his family only consumes it a few times annually. Canned corn appears frequently, yet fresh cobs remain an infrequent treat alongside other items like Brussels sprouts and stuffing, which often stay reserved for holiday meals like Thanksgiving and Christmas.

Holiday Foods and Seasonal Treats

Wolf observed a similar pattern with seasonal desserts and holiday staples. Items such as Nanaimo bars, Halloween chocolates, and his mother’s peach upside-down pudding cake—baked by his son each Christmas—are limited due to their rich nature. However, nutritious options like Brussels sprouts and corn on the cob could easily appear more often without waiting for special occasions.