OPINIONS

The Establishment vs. The Grassroots: What the Teneycke-Russo Fight Says About Conservatism Today. Conservatives can be a Cantankerous Bunch.

Published

on

Chad Dashly | The Current

Editorial note: Based on publicly available information, Kory Teneycke is one of the most influential conservative strategists in Canada. He served as communications director to former Prime Minister Stephen Harper, co-founded Rubicon Strategy, and managed multiple successful Ontario PC campaigns for Doug Ford. He has developed a reputation as a blunt, often controversial political operator who is willing to publicly criticize even members of his own political movement when he believes strategy is failing. (Wikipedia)

Anthony Russo appears to be a low level BC-based conservative activist, commentator, YouTuber and content creator with a growing presence on X and YouTube, where he focuses on grassroots conservative politics and leadership issues. (X (formerly Twitter))

For legal reasons, we cannot independently verify every allegation, criticism, or exchange between the two men, nor can we conclude that one person’s actions will definitely cause specific political consequences. This is an opinion discussing the broader political implications of a public feud between an establishment strategist and a grassroots activist.

By Chad Dashly | The Current

Politics has always been a battle of ideas.

Today, it is increasingly becoming a battle of tribes.

Over the past several weeks, one of the more interesting conservative skirmishes has not taken place in a legislature, a campaign war room, or a party convention hall. Instead, it has unfolded online, where BC activist and commentator Anthony Russo has repeatedly taken aim at veteran conservative strategist Kory Teneycke.

On the surface, it looks like a personality clash.

In reality, it represents something much bigger.

It is the latest chapter in a growing struggle between the conservative establishment and a newer generation of grassroots activists who believe the old playbook is broken.

To understand the conflict, you first need to understand the players.

Kory Teneycke is not simply another political commentator. He is one of the most successful conservative strategists in Canada. His fingerprints can be found on some of the biggest conservative victories of the last two decades. Whether serving Stephen Harper, helping build Sun News, or guiding Doug Ford’s Ontario campaigns, Teneycke has become part strategist, part operator, and part political celebrity.

He represents experience.

He represents pragmatism.

Most importantly, he represents the belief that politics is about winning.

Anthony Russo comes from a different world.

Like many younger conservative voices, he built his profile outside the traditional political establishment. His audience was not created through party organizations, consultants, or lobbyists. It was built online, directly with grassroots conservatives who increasingly distrust institutions, political insiders, and professional consultants.

He represents authenticity. But most conservatives don’t agree with his methods. he is a member of a fringe group.

He represents frustration.

Most importantly, he represents the belief that politics should be about principles first and strategy second.

Neither side is entirely right.

Neither side is entirely wrong.

Niether men have never been elected for public office.

The problem is that modern conservatism increasingly needs both.

Movements require activists.

Governments require professionals.

One brings raw energy. The other brings execution.

The tension emerges when either side starts believing it can succeed without the other.

Grassroots activists often underestimate how difficult it is to build winning coalitions. The political graveyard is filled with movements that had passion but lacked discipline.

At the same time, establishment strategists often underestimate how quickly grassroots supporters can withdraw trust when they believe insiders are protecting their own interests.

This dynamic has become increasingly visible across conservative politics in Canada, the United States, and Europe.

The old gatekeepers no longer control the conversation.

A smartphone and a social media account can build influence faster than a party executive committee.

That reality makes people like Anthony Russo impossible to ignore.

But influence and effectiveness are not always the same thing.

The risk for Russo is that constant attacks eventually become counterproductive. If every disagreement becomes a public war, people begin to focus on personalities rather than principles. The audience becomes exhausted. The message gets lost.

The risk for Teneycke is different.

The more establishment figures dismiss grassroots concerns, the more they reinforce the belief that ordinary members are not being heard.

History suggests that neither side ultimately wins these fights.

The winners are those who learn to work together.

Conservatives who want to form governments need the strategic expertise of people like Kory Teneycke.

They also need the passion and grassroots energy represented by voices like Anthony Russo.

Without the first, they lose elections.

Without the second, they lose movements.

The real question is not whether Russo is right about Teneycke.

Nor is it whether Teneycke is right about Russo.

The real question is whether conservatives can bridge the widening gap between the grassroots and the establishment before that divide becomes permanent.

Because if they cannot, the people celebrating the loudest won’t be conservatives at all.

It will be their political opponents.

Editorial note: This Opinion is written as a political opinion piece rather than a personal attack on either individual and focuses on the broader implications for conservative politics in Canada, and its future.

OPINIONS

Four Weeks Later: The BC Conservatives Have a Leader. Now They Need a Plan.

Published

on

By Chad Dashly | The Current

Four months of debates, membership drives, endorsements, social media skirmishes, fundraising pitches, and enough internal drama to fuel a reality television series, members elected Kerry-Lynne Findlay as leader of the BC Conservative Party.

The question now isn’t who won.

It’s what happens next.

Leadership races are about ambition. Governing parties are about discipline. Opposition parties hoping to become governments need both.

The BC Conservatives find themselves in an unusual position. For the first time in decades, they are no longer simply a protest movement, a coalition of frustrated voters, or a vehicle for dissatisfaction with the NDP. They are now the Official Opposition and a legitimate contender for government.

That changes everything.

The leadership race exposed both the strengths and weaknesses of the party. On one hand, thousands of new members joined. Volunteers worked tirelessly. Candidates travelled every corner of British Columbia. The race demonstrated that the party has energy, ideas, and grassroots support.

On the other hand, it also revealed divisions that cannot be ignored.

Supporters of Caroline Elliott, Peter Milobar, Yuri Fulmer, Iain Black, Harman Bhangu and others all entered the race with different visions for the future. Some wanted a more populist movement. Others wanted a government-in-waiting. Some emphasized grassroots activism while others focused on economic competence.

Now those factions must become one team.

Because David Eby is not going to defeat himself.

The NDP remains vulnerable on issues that matter to British Columbians: affordability, housing, healthcare access, public safety, addiction, and economic competitiveness. Families continue to struggle with rising costs. Businesses face mounting regulatory burdens. Resource communities worry about their future.

Yet vulnerability does not automatically translate into defeat.

The greatest danger facing the BC Conservatives today is believing that public frustration with the government is enough.

It isn’t.

Voters eventually ask a simple question:

“If not them, then who?”

And increasingly they follow that question with another:

“Can they actually govern?”

That is the challenge before Kerry-Lynne Findlay.

Her immediate task is not ideological. It is organizational.

She must unify the caucus.

She must build a professional campaign structure.

She must recruit credible candidates.

She must expand the donor base.

And perhaps most importantly, she must convince British Columbians that the Conservatives are more than a movement—they are a government-in-waiting.

That means fewer internal battles and more external focus.

British Columbians don’t spend much time thinking about party constitutions, executive elections, nomination disputes, or leadership rivalries. Political insiders obsess over these things. Voters do not.

Voters care about emergency rooms.

They care about housing costs.

They care about whether their children can afford to stay in British Columbia.

They care about crime, taxes, and economic opportunity.

The party that addresses those concerns most effectively will win the next election.

The good news for Conservatives is that they have time.

The next provincial election is not tomorrow.

There is an opportunity to heal divisions, refine policy, strengthen local riding associations, and present a united vision.

The bad news is that time moves quickly in politics.

The honeymoon period following a leadership victory rarely lasts long.

Sooner or later, the media, political opponents, and voters begin asking tougher questions.

What is the plan?

Who is on the team?

How will it be paid for?

What would a Conservative government actually look like?

Those answers must come sooner rather than later.

Four weeks after the leadership race, the BC Conservatives stand at a crossroads.

One path leads toward unity, professionalism, and electoral credibility.

The other leads toward factionalism, score-settling, and missed opportunity.

The choice belongs to the party.

The opportunity belongs to British Columbia.

And the clock is already ticking.

Continue Reading

OPINIONS

Canada—and British Columbia especially—feels like it’s standing at a crossroads.

Published

on

Opinion by Chad Dashly

People are tired. Not just politically tired. Financially tired. Emotionally tired. Tired of working harder every year only to watch groceries climb, housing drift further out of reach, and small businesses struggle under the weight of taxes, regulation, and uncertainty.

And while regular people tighten their belts, governments keep acting like the solution to every problem is another announcement, another consultant, another bureaucracy.

The disconnect is growing.

You can feel it when young people quietly admit they may never own a home in the communities where they grew up. You can feel it when seniors choose between prescriptions and groceries. You can feel it when small business owners—the backbone of every town in this province—wonder whether it’s still worth the risk to keep going.

British Columbians are not asking for miracles. They are asking for competence. Stability. Common sense.

That is why political movements across Canada are changing so quickly right now. People are no longer satisfied with polished talking points and carefully scripted politics. They want leaders who understand what it feels like to run payroll, balance a household budget, or worry about the future their kids are inheriting.

The rise of grassroots conservative energy in BC is not happening because people suddenly became angry overnight. It is happening because many voters feel ignored by institutions that no longer seem connected to everyday life.

And here’s the reality many political insiders still fail to understand: this isn’t just about ideology anymore. It’s about trust.

Trust that governments will spend responsibly.

Trust that public safety matters.

Trust that hard work still means something.

Trust that communities—not just political brands—come first.

At the same time, conservatives also face a choice. Winning frustration is easy. Building confidence is harder.

British Columbians do not want endless outrage. They want steady leadership. They want solutions that lower the temperature instead of raising it. They want leaders who can disagree without dividing neighbours against each other.

The next phase of politics in BC will belong to the people who understand both sides of that equation:

  • the frustration people feel,
  • and the hope they still want to believe in.

Because despite everything, British Columbians remain remarkably resilient. Communities still show up for each other. Volunteers still carry organizations that governments alone cannot replace. Entrepreneurs still take risks. Families still sacrifice to build something better.

That spirit is still here.

The question now is whether political leadership can catch up to the people it is supposed to serve.anada—and British Columbia especially—feels like it’s standing at a crossroads.

Continue Reading

OPINIONS

Elliott Leads, but the Real BC Conservative Race Starts in the Transfer Rounds

Published

on

The Current Newsroom Chad Dashly

The BC Conservative leadership race has now reached the point where the easy takes are falling apart.

A few weeks ago, the clean read was that Peter Milobar looked like the safe, establishment-friendly frontrunner. He had caucus experience, public profile, and the kind of resume that usually gives party insiders comfort. If you were sketching the race from a distance, he looked like the guy with the most obvious path. Then the Pallas survey landed, and suddenly the board changed.

Now the public picture says Caroline Elliott is out front, Kerry-Lynne Findlay is in striking distance, Iain Black is still lurking as a live option, and Milobar has slid badly in the visible numbers. Yuri Fulmer, at least from the public data, looks like he is running out of road. That does not mean the race is over. It means the race is finally being understood for what it is: not a headline contest, but a mechanics contest.

That matters, because this is not a normal one-ballot vote. This is a ranked ballot, riding-weighted leadership race. Those are very different animals. In this kind of race, being first is good. Being broadly acceptable is better. And being hated by fewer people than your rivals can sometimes matter more than leading the first count.

That is why Elliott’s current position is stronger than just “31 percent in a poll.” If she is leading on first preferences and if a large share of members are failing to rank all the way down the ballot, she benefits twice. She starts ahead, and ballot exhaustion can lower the bar she has to clear in the final rounds. That is a huge advantage in a ranked system. You do not need to dominate the room. You need to survive it and still be standing when the math tightens.

But there is a catch. Elliott’s lead is public, not final. The Pallas survey was commissioned by her campaign, which does not make it fake, but it does mean nobody should treat it like holy scripture. Campaign-sponsored polling is useful for spotting movement. It is not the same as neutral gospel. So the smart read is not “Elliott has won.” The smart read is “Elliott has the clearest path today.”

Findlay is the candidate who benefits most from that distinction. She does not need to lead the first count to win. She needs to become the principal landing spot for everyone who does not want Elliott. That is a real path in a five-candidate field. If Fulmer voters break her way, if Milobar voters see her as the steadier alternative, and if enough Black supporters choose her over Elliott in a final round, she can absolutely come through the middle and win the thing. Not because she was the loudest. Because she was the last consensus option standing.

Black is even more interesting. He is the kind of candidate who can look weaker in a simple poll than he really is in a ranked contest. Third place in first choices is not fatal if you are the second choice of a lot of people. The problem for him is simple: he needs too many things to go right. He has to absorb enough lower-tier support early, then jump Findlay, then beat Elliott head-to-head. That is possible. It is just a narrower bridge.

And then there is Milobar, whose problem is not just the drop in numbers. It is the narrative collapse. Leadership races are psychological as much as mathematical. Once a candidate goes from “likely winner” to “why is he fading?” that becomes its own problem. Donors get jumpy. Volunteers lose swagger. Supporters start thinking strategically instead of loyally. A campaign can survive bad numbers. It struggles more to survive the smell of decline.

What this race is really revealing, though, is something bigger than the candidates themselves. The BC Conservatives are no longer a tiny protest club where a few insiders can settle things with a few phone calls and a familiar surname. With more than 42,000 eligible members in the mix, this is now a serious political organization with mass-membership dynamics. That changes everything. It means factions matter. Geography matters. Turnout operations matter. Data matters. Message discipline matters. You can no longer bluff your way through on reputation alone.

And that may be the most important takeaway of all. This contest is testing whether the party is becoming a real governing contender or just a larger version of its old self. Real parties do not just pick leaders. They stress-test coalitions. They find out whether their members want a fighter, a manager, a consensus-builder, or a disrupter. They find out whether they are animated by anger, ambition, discipline, or identity. This race is doing all of that in real time.

So where does that leave things now?

Elliott has momentum and the clearest first-ballot advantage. Findlay has the most plausible comeback route. Black has the most interesting upset path. Milobar looks like the candidate who most needs a dramatic late correction. Fulmer looks like he needs a miracle or a hidden organizational map that the public cannot yet see.

That is the state of play.

The lazy analysis says this race is about who is ahead. The better analysis says it is about who is acceptable, who is organized, and who can unite the pieces once the counting starts. In ranked leadership races, the winner is not always the person who excites the most people first. Sometimes it is the person the fewest people can live without by the end.

And right now, that is why Elliott looks strongest.

But strongest is not the same as safe.

Continue Reading

Trending