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.

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.

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.