Jeremy Geddert: Conservative leadership elections aren’t conservative enough 

Kerry-Lynne Findlay addresses the annual meeting of the Union of B.C. Municipalities on Sept. 17, 2026, three days before announcing that she was stepping down as leader of the BC Conservatives. Photo by Scott McAlpine / UBCM

Article content

Kerry-Lynne Findlay’s impossible tightrope act is over, but the chorus of cheers and jeers now moves from the circus ring of caucus to the raucous stage of stunned party members. The Conservative division of labour, where the party membership hires leaders but the caucus fires them, violates the old conservative maxim that you cannot serve two masters. There is nothing conservative about encouraging two-faced leaders, nor about entrusting the “hiring” part to members in the first place.

Article content

Article content

Canada’s chief conservative institution is its Westminster system of Responsible Government, the oft-forgottenCanadian triumph of the 1840s. Responsible government rests on two principles that unite the tasks of hiring and firing.

Article content

Article content

Article content

First, Cabinet alone is responsible for governing, because it both introduces spending bills and executes them. Unlike a presidential cabinet, Canadian ministers cannot deflect responsibility for bad laws to Congress.

Article content

Second, Parliament alone  — typically the majority party caucus — is responsible for hiring and firing that governing Cabinet, as Justin Trudeau eventually learned. Unlike the American House majority, Liberal MPs could not deflect responsibility for a bad executive to voters.

Article content

Constitutions do not regulate parties outside government. But the Westminster ethos still led opposition parties to adopt the same structure: party caucuses hired and fired their leaders.

Article content

If responsibility doesn’t seem distinctively conservative, just ask progressives, who generally bristle at the “smoke-filled rooms” of “party insider” caucuses. The original Progressive party rode a populist western wave of democratization that may have undermined its own leaders, but impelled both major parties to introduce delegated conventions.

Article content

Article content

Later, the populist Canadian Alliance used a one-member-one-vote method to hire the unready Stockwell Day, which produced a short and stormy tenure for both leader and party. Yet its democratizing wave effectively pressured all Canadian parties to let members hire and fire party leaders.

Article content

Article content

In practice, of course, caucuses could always find ways to fire their leaders. But nobody seemed to mind having torn up responsible government. The Cold War was over, democracy had won, and the end of history was nigh. Even British parties democratized their leadership contests.

Article content

Yet elsewhere, Westminster history continued unabated. For instance, the conservative Australian Liberal Party maintained its closed-door policy, even if no longer smoke-filled. In both 2015 and 2018, its governing majority caucus quickly and smoothly replaced its prime ministers, turning upcoming electoral disasters into renewed majorities.

Article content

Each change put the egg on the face of the leader, not the party. Needless to say, B.C. Conservatives can only dream.

Article content

New Zealand’s National Party preserved the same exemplary method. Even its Labour rival, keener to indigenize than even the BC NDP, returned in 2021 to the old caucus selection method. Why are B.C. Conservatives less faithful to their Westminster inheritance than Jacinda Ardern, decolonizer of Aotearoa?