OPINIONS

Seven MLAs Gone: The BC Conservatives Chose Division Over Discipline

Published

on

By Chad Dashly | The Current

The BC Conservatives are no longer experiencing growing pains.

They are experiencing a full-blown political collapse.

Áʼa:líya Warbus has become the seventh MLA to leave the Conservative caucus since Kerry-Lynne Findlay narrowly won the party leadership three months ago. She joins Bruce Banman, Teresa Wat, Brennan Day, Peter Milobar, Ian Paton and Rosalyn Bird.

Seven MLAs in three months.

That is not renewal. It is not ideological housekeeping. It is not a leader courageously enforcing discipline.

It is a failure of leadership.

Findlay defeated Caroline Elliott by the narrowest of margins—51 per cent to 49 per cent—on the final ballot. The contest presented members with two distinctly different paths.

Findlay offered confrontation, ideological purity and a campaign built around determining who was—or was not—a “real conservative.”

Elliott offered something less theatrical but far more valuable: the ability to build a coalition capable of defeating David Eby.

The party chose confrontation.

It is now paying the price.

Nobody can know with certainty what would have happened under Caroline Elliott. Leadership always looks easier from the sidelines. She would have inherited the same competing personalities, regional tensions and ideological divisions.

But it is difficult to imagine Elliott losing seven MLAs in her first three months.

Elliott understood something the current leadership appears to have forgotten: winning a Conservative leadership contest and winning British Columbia are two entirely different challenges.

A leadership candidate can win by appealing to the most motivated members. A premier must build support among suburban families, small-business owners, resource workers, new Canadians, rural voters and politically homeless former BC Liberal supporters.

That requires conservative principles, certainly.

It also requires judgment, discipline and emotional intelligence.

Elliott’s experience inside the old BC Liberal and BC United coalition was portrayed as a liability during the leadership campaign. In hindsight, it may have been precisely what the Conservatives needed.

She understood how fragile British Columbia’s centre-right coalition really is. It includes social conservatives and fiscal conservatives, populists and pragmatists, rural resource communities and culturally diverse suburban ridings.

You do not hold that coalition together by constantly questioning whether half of it belongs.

You hold it together by giving people a reason to stay.

Findlay’s defenders will say the departing MLAs are disloyal. Some will argue that the caucus is being purified of members who were never genuine conservatives.

That might satisfy the party’s loudest online voices. It will not defeat the NDP.

When seven elected representatives independently conclude they cannot continue under the same leader, blaming all seven becomes increasingly difficult.

Warbus said British Columbia needs steady leadership and someone capable of bringing people together. Teresa Wat said the party had become exclusive rather than inclusive. Peter Milobar said his values no longer aligned with its direction. Bruce Banman said constituents increasingly viewed the party as unelectable under Findlay.

These are not anonymous critics or Liberal operatives. They are people elected under the Conservative banner.

The operational record is equally troubling.

MLAs reportedly complained they were unclear about the leader’s strategy. Senior party officials were replaced. Staff came and went. Caucus operations director Apollo Chung was fired. Meanwhile, controversial language directives, provocative social-media content and internal accusations repeatedly displaced the issues British Columbians actually care about.

Affordability. Crime. Healthcare. Housing. Jobs. Resource development. Government spending.

David Eby should be facing the fight of his political life.

Instead, the BC Conservatives are fighting one another.

So who is behind this mess?

Findlay is the leader. She hired the team, approved the direction and owns the results. Political leaders do not get to take credit for victories while outsourcing responsibility for disasters.

Her chief of staff, Chris Delaney, and the senior people directing caucus operations, communications and political strategy also deserve scrutiny. The personnel choices and combative messaging suggest the current crisis is not a series of unrelated accidents. It reflects a deliberate political culture.

Then there is the question many Conservatives are asking privately: what influence, if any, has Jenni Byrne had?

Byrne is one of the most powerful Conservative strategists in Canada and was a senior adviser to Pierre Poilievre. Findlay served as Poilievre’s chief opposition whip and comes from that federal Conservative political network.

The resemblance in political style is hard to miss: tightly controlled communications, suspicion of traditional media, sharp wedge issues, an emphasis on identifying enemies and a belief that confrontation can substitute for coalition building.

But resemblance is not proof.

I have found no reliable public evidence establishing that Jenni Byrne formally advised Findlay’s provincial leadership campaign or is directing the BC Conservative Party today. Unless Findlay, Byrne or someone with direct knowledge confirms such a role, it would be irresponsible to state it as fact.

That does not make the question illegitimate.

If an outside strategist helped shape Findlay’s campaign, staffing decisions or governing strategy, Conservative members deserve to know. Findlay could end the speculation immediately by disclosing who advised her campaign and who is currently shaping the party’s direction.

Transparency would be preferable to rumor’s.

However, even if Byrne never participated in a single meeting, the ultimate responsibility remains with Findlay. Leaders choose whose advice to follow. They decide whether to broaden the party or narrow it. They decide whether criticism should be heard or punished.

Caroline Elliott’s leadership would not have guaranteed victory in the next election.

But she likely would have started by stabilizing the caucus, incorporating former rivals, reassuring members from different conservative traditions and turning the party’s attention toward David Eby.

Most importantly, Elliott seemed to understand that a party does not become stronger every time someone leaves it.

The BC Conservatives came within a few seats of forming government in 2024. They had an opportunity to professionalize, broaden their appeal and present themselves as a credible government-in-waiting.

Instead, they chose a leader who defined herself by deciding who did not belong.

Three months later, seven MLAs have answered that question for themselves.

The BC Conservatives do not need another purge, another inflammatory video or another loyalty test.

They need humility, competent management and an honest reckoning over how a party standing on the doorstep of government managed to begin dismantling itself.

Caroline Elliott might have provided that kind of leadership.

The members chose another path.

Now the entire centre-right movement may pay for it.

Continue Reading

BC STORIES

Why the Early Election Gamble Backfired on the NDP

The B.C. Conservative Party is set to claim two-thirds of legislative seats after David Eby’s snap election call backfired, leaving the NDP seeking new leadership.

Published

on

Voters Deliver Decisive Result in 2026 Snap Vote

Following the outcome of British Columbia’s 2026 snap election, the Conservative Party of B.C. is set to capture two-thirds of the seats in the legislature, leaving the NDP searching for a new party leader. Outgoing Premier David Eby initiated the vote two years ahead of schedule, citing the need for a fresh mandate to confront U.S. trade challenges while also seeking to capitalize on internal Conservative divisions.

However, the early vote call drew criticism from within his own party. NDP MLA Ravi Parmar, who won a tight contest in Langford-Highlands, stated that electors sent a clear signal that the early election was a mistake. According to Parmar, the party spent the campaign defending the timing of the vote rather than promoting its platform, which severely hurt their leadership.

Record-Low Voter Turnout and Campaign Missteps

Preliminary figures indicate voter participation dropped to just over 48 per cent. Total votes fell for both major parties compared to 2024, with Conservatives dropping by approximately 50,000 votes and the NDP seeing a decline of about 275,000. Mario Canseco of polling firm Research Co. pointed to poor messaging and rainy weather as factors, noting that Eby’s campaign remained focused on attacking former Conservative leader Kerry-Lynne Findlay, even though she had resigned two days prior to the election call.

Canseco noted that voters perceived interim Conservative leader Lorne Doerkson as a steady presence, making the NDP’s warnings of party instability ineffective. Late-campaign efforts by Eby to draw Green Party voters to the NDP also proved insufficient, as calculations showed the Conservatives would have won even if all Green supporters had shifted their ballots.

Analysis of a Political Miscalculation

Political science lecturer Stewart Prest from the University of British Columbia described the early call as a major political blunder and an own goal driven by partisan hubris. He noted that Eby ran a negative campaign that ultimately failed to resonate with the public.

Former Conservative leader John Rustad attributed his party’s victory to public dissatisfaction with the opportunistic timing of the election. Rustad, who became the party’s sole MLA in 2023 before leading them close to victory in 2024, said voters have used the past two years to become more comfortable with the Conservatives, who have not governed the province in a century.

Campaign consultant Mike McKinnon, who advised calling the snap election to secure a stronger mandate for trade negotiations, admitted the decision proved far more damaging than anticipated. Unlike the 2020 early election under John Horgan, where public frustration quickly faded, McKinnon acknowledged that Eby remained stuck defending the decision throughout the entire campaign.

Continue Reading

OPINIONS

Why Premier-Elect Lorne Doerkson Must Clear a Party Rulebook Hurdle After B.C. Election

B.C. Premier-elect Lorne Doerkson faces a party constitutional clause after leading the B.C. Conservatives to a majority victory, ending a decade of NDP rule.

Published

on

Internal Rule Poses Post-Election Hurdle for Premier-Elect

Following a decisive victory that delivered a two-thirds majority government to the B.C. Conservatives on Saturday, premier-elect Lorne Doerkson is moving quickly to resolve an internal administrative constraint regarding his leadership. Under the party’s current constitution, an interim leader is barred from seeking the permanent leadership in a subsequent ballot unless two-thirds of the party’s membership votes to change the clause.

Addressing reporters on Sunday, Doerkson dismissed concerns that the internal provision would prevent him from serving as premier. He characterized the matter as an administrative detail with further details coming imminently, asserting that he remains party leader and is thrilled to be premier-elect of a united party.

Party Leadership Transition and Local Mandate

Doerkson, who won the riding of Cariboo-Chilcotin after switching from B.C. United earlier this year, assumed the interim leadership shortly before outgoing NDP Premier David Eby called a snap election on Sept. 22. The election outcome brought an end to nearly ten years of NDP governance in British Columbia, completing a rapid rise for a party that captured under two per cent of the vote in 2020.

The brief leadership transition followed the sudden departure of Kerry-Lynne Findlay just days prior to the campaign. On Saturday, Findlay offered congratulations online for what she described as a historic victory, while newly elected West Vancouver-Capilano MLA Caroline Elliott—who previously lost a close leadership contest to Findlay—expressed full support for Doerkson, stating he had earned the trust of British Columbians.

Constitutional Amendment and Base Reaction

To secure Doerkson’s position, the party’s board confirmed it intends to pursue appropriate measures to amend the constitution, stating publicly that a premier selected by voters deserves the certainty of leading the party. Former B.C. premier Gordon Campbell also voiced support at the election-night event, describing Doerkson as an honest and straightforward figure.

However, political analysts point out potential friction within the party’s membership. Hamish Telford, an associate professor of political science at the University of the Fraser Valley, noted that a significant segment of the base had sought to distance the party from B.C. Liberal ties. Telford raised questions about how grassroots members will respond as the Conservatives shift toward a mainstream, business-oriented direction.

Continue Reading

OPINIONS

Doerkson to British Columbia: The Waiting Is Over

Published

on

Doerkson to British Columbia: The Waiting Is Over

Lorne Doerkson’s promise to make British Columbia a place where investment and opportunity can grow is compelling. The test will be whether his government can turn the speech into visible results.

Lorne Doerkson says British Columbia must replace uncertainty with action. His first message as premier-elect sets an ambitious direction on investment, energy, health care and affordability. Now the work is to make those promises real.

British Columbia has heard plenty of promises about its potential. What it has not always seen is the follow-through that turns potential into projects, jobs and opportunity.

That is why Lorne Doerkson’s first speech as premier-elect landed on a simple, memorable point: “You can plan around a no, but you can’t plan around a maybe.”

It is a sharp description of what can happen when businesses, workers and communities cannot tell whether a project will move forward, what it will cost or how long approval will take. Uncertainty does not sit still. Investment can go elsewhere. Young people can build their lives somewhere else. Communities can wait years for decisions that shape their future.

Doerkson’s answer is to say yes to investment and to cut red tape “like it’s never been cut before.” He promised a business summit in Vancouver next year and set out clear ambitions for natural gas production: doubling it by 2032 and tripling it by 2035. He argued that growth could mean tens of thousands of jobs and at least $6 billion a year for hospitals and schools.

Those are big commitments. They give British Columbians something concrete to measure. They also create a responsibility for the incoming government: explain how the province will reach those targets, what infrastructure and approvals will be required, and how communities will see the benefits.

The same test applies to the rest of the speech. Doerkson spoke about more fibre moving by truck, permits issued in months rather than years, support for mineral exploration, ports and rail that can get products to market, and reliable power for new industrial projects. Each promise speaks to a practical problem. Together, they describe a province that wants to build again.

But a change in tone will matter only if people can see a change in the process. If permits still take years, if grid connections remain out of reach or if communities cannot get clear answers, the language of “yes” will become another political slogan.

Doerkson also tied growth to the daily concerns of families. He promised a $1,000 tax cut as a start and no new taxes. He spoke of a publicly funded health-care system, rural emergency rooms and maternity wards that are open, family doctors for people who need them, and safer hospitals for staff.

These are not side issues to an economic plan. A province cannot persuade families to stay if they cannot find a doctor, rely on local emergency care or see a path to owning a home. The promise that a hard day’s work should lead to a family home and a future in British Columbia will be judged against the cost of living and the services people depend on.

On public safety, Doerkson said criminals should remain behind bars while people who need treatment should receive it. On property rights and parks, he offered assurances to landowners and the public. These commitments will require careful decisions in government. Protecting property, expanding access and responding to public safety concerns can involve competing interests. Voters will expect clear rules and consistent results.

The most personal part of the speech was its appeal to people considering leaving. To business owners, Doerkson urged them to stay and grow here. To young people, he said this is their home and their best days should happen close to family and friends, in a place they can afford.

That appeal is understandable. It also raises the standard for the government. People do not stay because a premier asks them to. They stay when opportunity is real, housing is within reach, public services work and their effort has a future here.

A province cannot eliminate every delay, disagreement or difficult trade-off. But it can make decisions on time, state its rules plainly and give people confidence that the answer will not remain “maybe” forever.

Doerkson has set an ambitious direction: a British Columbia where investment comes first, projects move, public services are strong and young people can build their lives at home. The speech made the case. Now the government must show, one decision at a time, that the waiting really is over.

—Chad Dashly

Continue Reading

Trending