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 News Room Chad Dashly

BC Conservatives narrow the leadership field to nine — and the real contest is about discipline

Opinion

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.

Key Takeaways

By Chad Dashly, the Current

• John Rustad told reporters on Feb. 10 he remains undecided about running again, with a Feb. 15 deadline to file an application supported by 250 member signatures.
• His pitch centers on affordability pressures and a struggling forestry sector, positioning “kitchen-table” concerns as the priority.
• Rustad drew contrast with internal culture-war flashpoints, arguing many workers can’t afford to lead with social-issue fights when bills are rising.
• He presented himself as a unifier, praising rivals’ “skill sets,” rejecting purity tests, and pledging support for the eventual winner.
• If he runs, the contest becomes a referendum on whether the party chooses discipline and economic focus—or stays stuck in internal conflict.

The Deep Dive

John Rustad walked back into Victoria this week with a message that sounded less like a comeback tour and more like an attempt to pull his party back to ground level. At his Feb. 10 news conference, Rustad didn’t pretend the Conservative leadership question is simple. He said he’s still undecided about running again, and he put a hard date on the decision: Feb. 15, the deadline to file an application backed by 250 member signatures.

That hesitation matters because it reframes his potential return. Instead of projecting inevitability, Rustad cast the moment as a calculation—whether he can steady the movement or whether his re-entry sharpens the very tensions he says he wants to calm. In other words, is Rustad a reset button, or a new spark?

Affordability and forestry over faction fights

Rustad’s “why now” argument was direct: affordability is squeezing households, and forestry is faltering. He contrasted those pocketbook pressures with the party’s internal pull toward culture-war battles—debates about gender identity in education and competing narratives about residential schools. The most forceful line wasn’t a slogan; it was a reality check. Rustad said he’s hearing from mill workers who are focused on mortgages and paycheques, not the latest social-media dispute.

A bid to shift the center of gravity

That’s the strategic bet behind his appearance: that B.C. conservative politics can refocus on day-to-day economics, jobs, and housing. Rustad is effectively arguing the next leader has to be a kitchen-table opposition leader first, and not a permanent combatant in online cultural conflict. In a province where housing costs and economic anxiety touch nearly everyone, that’s not a niche position—it’s an attempt to claim the political middle of the conversation.

The brand problem he can’t dodge

Rustad’s challenge isn’t that his message is too moderate. It’s that his name is tied to the turbulence he’s urging the party to move past. He resigned in December saying he wanted to avoid a “civil war” inside the party. Over the last year, caucus fractures and discipline fights helped define the Conservatives as a movement still learning how to act like a government-in-waiting. When you’ve been the leader during the roughest stretches, you don’t get to return as a neutral referee.

Still, Rustad may be uniquely positioned to argue for a “back to basics” reset precisely because he’s already lived the costs of internal warfare. He praised other candidates’ strengths, dismissed factional purity tests about who qualifies as a “real Conservative,” and promised to support the eventual winner—even if that winner would prefer he “go golfing.”

Why It Matters

If Rustad runs, the race becomes bigger than one candidate’s comeback. It becomes a high-stakes choice about what the B.C. Conservatives want to be: a disciplined affordability-and-jobs operation that tries to broaden appeal, or a party locked in recurring internal arguments that distract from economic pressures. Either way, his Feb. 15 deadline forces a decision point—one that could clarify whether the movement is ready to prioritize seriousness over satisfaction and unify around a practical agenda.