By Chad Dashly | *The Current*

Right now, there isn’t a clear runaway favourite in the 2026 Conservative Party of British Columbia leadership race. But based on early polling, endorsements, and political positioning, three realistic front-runners are beginning to emerge.

The party officially approved nine candidates to run in the contest: Bruce Banman, Harman Bhangu, Iain Black, Caroline Elliott, Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Yuri Fulmer, Warren Hamm, Darrell Jones, and Peter Milobar. The leadership vote is expected to take place on May 30, 2026, following the spring legislative session.

With such a large field, the race remains fluid. Leadership contests often evolve quickly, especially as candidates begin signing new members and building campaign organizations across the province. But even in these early stages, a few contenders appear to be separating themselves from the pack.

Darrell Jones has emerged as one of the most talked-about candidates in the race. As the former president of Save-On-Foods, Jones brings a strong private-sector background and has framed his campaign around the idea of executive leadership and fiscal discipline. His pitch is simple: British Columbia needs the kind of management and accountability that successful businesses require.

That message may resonate with voters frustrated by government spending and bureaucracy. Early polling suggests Jones has the highest vote consideration among the candidates, hovering around 25 percent. His business credentials could also help him attract donors and support from the province’s business community.

But Jones also faces a challenge common to outsider candidates. He lacks legislative experience and must build a strong grassroots organization quickly if he hopes to translate interest into actual votes.

Peter Milobar represents a very different path to leadership. The Kamloops MLA and former mayor offers experience inside the political system and has built strong relationships within the Conservative caucus. Several MLAs have already endorsed him, giving his campaign credibility within the party establishment.

Milobar’s supporters argue that governing requires not just ideas but an understanding of how government actually works. That experience could appeal to members looking for stability and discipline.

At the same time, his more moderate profile may not generate the same enthusiasm among activist members who are looking for a more confrontational conservative voice.

Then there is Kerry-Lynne Findlay, whose candidacy introduces a national dimension to the race. A former federal cabinet minister, Findlay brings deep connections to Canada’s broader conservative movement and significant experience in national politics.

Her relationships within federal Conservative circles could translate into strong fundraising and campaign infrastructure. However, not currently holding a seat in the provincial legislature may make it harder for her to build momentum within the party’s grassroots base.

Beyond the leading trio, several candidates could still influence the outcome of the race. Caroline Elliott has developed support among ideological conservatives, while Bruce Banman appeals to a more populist wing of the party. Meanwhile, Iain Black and Yuri Fulmer bring business experience that could resonate with members looking for economic credibility.

Leadership contests often produce surprises, particularly when voting systems involve ranked ballots or multiple rounds of counting. In those scenarios, the candidate who is the most broadly acceptable to members can sometimes win even without leading in first-choice support.

If the leadership vote were held today, Peter Milobar might have a slight edge due to his caucus support and organizational strength. But Darrell Jones may have the most upside if his campaign gains momentum and successfully mobilizes members seeking an outsider.

In truth, the race is still wide open. Over the next several weeks, the candidate who signs the most members and builds the strongest grassroots network will likely determine who ultimately leads the Conservative Party of British Columbia into its next political chapter.

Opinion Newsroom Chad Dashly

VANCOUVER — The Conservative Party of B.C.’s Leadership Election Organizing Committee (LEOC) has closed its application window and approved nine contestants to move to the next phase of the leadership race: Bruce Banman, Harman Bhangu, Iain Black, Caroline Elliott, Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Yuri Fulmer, Warren Hamm, Darrell Jones, and Peter Milobar.

On paper, it’s just a list. In practice, it’s a stress test for a party that grew quickly, became the Official Opposition, then watched its leader resign after internal turmoil — and now has to prove it can behave like a government-in-waiting, not a protest movement with a bigger microphone.

A nine-person field usually signals energy. Here, it also signals a problem to solve.

Leadership races are supposed to be about ideas and direction. This one is also about whether the B.C. Conservatives can enforce basic internal standards without triggering another civil war.

The application requirements reported publicly — including a $5,000 entry fee and at least 250 member signatures from across the province — were designed to separate serious contenders from momentary internet fame. That’s not glamorous. It is, however, what grown-up parties do when they’ve learned that “anyone can run” eventually turns into “everyone can embarrass us.”

Two previously declared MLA candidates — Sheldon Clare and Steve Kooner — withdrew in the days leading up to the LEOC announcement, underscoring how much procedural gatekeeping and campaign organization now matter in a party that is trying to professionalize at speed.

Three lanes are emerging — and each comes with a risk

The approved slate naturally breaks into three broad lanes.

• The caucus lane: Banman, Bhangu, and Milobar bring elected credibility and day-to-day experience as the Official Opposition. The upside is obvious: they can plausibly argue they know what it takes to hold government to account and present as a premier-in-waiting. The downside is equally obvious: caucus politics can look like inside baseball to members who joined because they wanted something that didn’t feel like Victoria-as-usual.
• The established political lane: Iain Black and Kerry-Lynne Findlay bring recognizable résumés from past political eras. That can reassure donors and institutional conservatives who want competence over chaos. But it also invites the party’s internal critique that it could become “a rebrand” of an older coalition — the very charge some activists have levelled at conservative projects in B.C. for decades.
• The outsider lane: Elliott, Fulmer, Hamm, and Jones (from the public descriptions available so far) will likely frame themselves as builders, not lifers — and as the antidote to a political class that many voters distrust. Outsiders can win leadership races. They can also struggle to pivot from slogans to systems when they inherit a caucus, a budget, and a news cycle that punishes improvisation.

None of these lanes is “wrong.” The larger question is whether the party’s membership wants movement energy or governing readiness — and whether it can find a leader who credibly offers both.

The John Rustad hangover is real — and it will shape every ballot

It’s impossible to read this candidate list without the recent history hovering over it. Former leader John Rustad resigned on Dec. 4, 2025, after divisions over policy and personnel roiled the party, according to reporting at the time.

That matters because leadership elections aren’t held in a vacuum. They are a referendum on what members think went wrong — and a pre-emptive argument about what must never happen again.

If the membership believes Rustad’s departure was driven by a lack of internal discipline and process, they will lean toward candidates promising tighter message control, better candidate vetting, and fewer self-inflicted crises. If they believe the party’s internal fights were about “true conservatism” versus “electability,” the race becomes an ideological sorting exercise — one that could reward sharper rhetoric over steadier management.

May 30 is not the finish line — it’s the credibility deadline

The party says it will announce its new leader on May 30, 2026, at a leadership convention. Between now and then, the campaign will revolve around membership rules, voter eligibility, and organizational capacity — the unsexy mechanics that decide races long before convention day.

There’s also a strategic reality: as the Official Opposition, the B.C. Conservatives don’t have the luxury of treating this like an internal club election. The leader-in-waiting has to perform in public, under daily scrutiny, with a caucus that needs coherence and a province that expects seriousness.

Voters who don’t follow party mechanics will judge the outcome in simpler terms: does the new leader look like someone who could run a cabinet, manage a crisis, and keep a team together?

What should British Columbians watch for next?

Here are three tells that will matter more than bumper-sticker ideology:

• Who can unify without erasing differences: A leader who “wins” by humiliating other factions may inherit a party that never stops relitigating the race.
• Who can talk about B.C. problems with B.C. answers: Housing, cost of living, health care access, and public safety are where elections are won or lost — not on imported culture-war scripts.
• Who can pass the competence test: Policy depth, staffing judgment, and a willingness to say “no” to bad ideas are not optional for an opposition trying to look ready to govern.

The LEOC has done its part: close the application process, publish a clear slate, move the party forward. Now comes the harder work — proving that a fast-growing political operation can mature quickly enough to hold together, and credible enough to convince British Columbians it deserves the keys to government.

B.C.’s budget day always comes with theatre, but this year the numbers are doing most of the talking.

If the deficit is hovering around $11.2 billion, as widely reported in the lead-up to today’s fiscal update, the warning light on the dash is no longer blinking — it’s solid red. Governments can run deficits for good reasons: emergencies, recessions, long-term investments that pay back in productivity and health. But when insiders start floating words like “unsustainable” and the public begins hearing whispers about public-sector job cuts, it’s a sign the province is drifting from strategic borrowing into structural imbalance.

Let’s be honest about what “cuts” usually mean in British Columbia. They rarely land on the abstract concept of “government.” They land on people: education assistants, nurses, case workers, clerks, lab techs, community outreach staff — the everyday infrastructure that makes a province function. The irony is that cutting public services often doesn’t save money so much as shift costs. Understaff hospitals and wait times climb. Underfund schools and learning gaps widen. Reduce inspection and enforcement and you get more problems later — and bigger bills.

So what’s the alternative? It starts with clarity and courage.

First, government needs to distinguish between waste and value. Every large system has inefficiencies, duplication, and projects that overrun budgets. That should be the first target — not frontline roles that directly serve the public. A serious budget should lay out a credible plan to improve procurement, control capital costs, and streamline administration, with measurable benchmarks the public can track.

Second, B.C. needs a grown-up conversation about revenue. Deficits don’t shrink by optimism alone. If the province wants Scandinavian-quality services with North American tax tolerance, the math won’t cooperate. That doesn’t mean punishing families who are already stretched. It means being honest about which services are priorities and how we pay for them — including whether the tax system is capturing a fair share from sectors and high-end activities that can shoulder it.

Third, if restraint is coming, it should be predictable and targeted. Random freezes and across-the-board reductions are the fastest way to create chaos and drive talent out of public service. B.C. can’t afford to hollow out institutions and then act surprised when services deteriorate.

Budget day is about choices. The easy political move is to promise everything, protect the optics, and quietly squeeze the people doing the work. The right move is to level with British Columbians: a deficit this large demands discipline — but discipline doesn’t have to mean dismantling the services communities rely on.

If the province is truly serious about sustainability, it should start by protecting the front line and cutting the spin.