250 News - Your News, Your Views, Now

October 27, 2017 9:09 pm

Dan Brooks Returned as BC Conservative Leader

Saturday, September 17, 2016 @ 4:55 PM
BC Conservative Leader Dan Brooks delivers victory speech to delegates in Prince George. Photo 250News

BC Conservative Leader Dan Brooks delivers victory speech to delegates in Prince George. Photo 250News

Prince George, B.C. – Vanderhoof guide-outfitter Dan Brooks has again been elected leader of the B.C. Conservative Party.

At its two-day leadership convention in Prince George, Brooks on Saturday afternoon was declared the winner with 52.% percent of the party’s support compared to 47.9% for runner-up Konrad Pimiskern of Kelowna.  The race also included Jay Cross of Vancouver.

Brooks, who was also elected BC Conservative leader in 2014 before stepping down in 2016, told delegates that his mistake first time around was thinking he was the leader of a few thousand Conservatives when he should have been thinking in terms of leading 4.6  million British Columbians.

250 News will report on an interview conducted with Dan Brooks on Saturday afternoon.


Congratulations Mr. Brooks, yours will be a difficult job trying to get the BC Conservatives out of the Liberal bed.

I always thought that three was a crowd, but in the case of Reformers, Conservatives, and Liberals, three is company. Too bad the BC Liberal Party has lost it’s roots and values, they will do anything to stay in power, including turning Conservative when it becomes necessary.

    Did not pay much attention , however probably because Mr. Brooks left Vanderhoof to see if he could get elected down south saying that he would be more central to the people’s voices. Now where will he move now. He belongs to Vanderhoof and if not sell his business. Don,t care for politicians who just move to get elected.

Oops… I forgot to add the link showing how Conservative the BC Liberals can get.

“Organized by Preston Manning’s Manning Centre for Building Democracy, the conference is billed on its website as “a conservative family reunion”. And with a speaker’s like Guy Giorno, Tom Long, Richard Ciano and Chuck Strahl the weekend conference is veritable who’s who of the Canadian right.”

But guess who was also a guest speaker at this “conservative family reunion”? Yup, Christy Clark! So the question needs to be asked; who, or what is, a BC Liberal?

ht tp://vancouversun.com/news/staff-blogs/clark-to-speak-at-manning-centre-breakfast

    “who, or what is, a BC Liberal”..

    A member of a party which has been on office for some 15 years. They must be doing something right …. and centre …. and left ….

    It is what coalitions of sorts do.

How and why are these guys even in politics? Is it simply because they want to run something?

It’s just to bad… A wasted opportunity. I could never vote for someone that doesn’t have policy or even an idea meme. If they came out and said we support electoral reform and a preferential ballot.. There is something I could hang my hat on… Or maybe come out for free enterprise and the middle class and small business by opposing free trade… They could very well get my vote.

But elect me because this is who I am misses the whole point IMO.

    Where is there any evidence that jurisdictions that have a ‘preferential ballot’ elect governments their citizens are any more satisfied with than other jurisdictions that don’t?

    I have yet to see any, from anywhere, that governments elected that way are really any more responsive in obtaining for their electorates the results those electors desire.

    Rather it’s still the case that, “…the dogs bark but the caravan moves on.” And having a few different ‘dogs’ doing a little more ‘barking’ doesn’t change anything one iota.

    So why, pray tell, would we want to waste both time and money putting in a cumbersome and complicated electoral change to have a set-up that won’t really provide anything any better than what we’ve already got?

    To me, this is just a distraction, something that leads people away from looking at the REAL problem why what’s “physically possible, socially desirable, and morally correct, can’t always be made financially possible.”

      Well Ireland elects with a preferential ballot and they have done as good as anyone in the last thirty years providing responsive government.

      Also Brexit anyone? It never would have happened if Britain had not changed to the preferential ballot. David Cameron and his whole government were all for handing over British sovereignty to the drunk Junker and his Soviet styled EU… But first to get elected they needed the silent majority on a preferential ballot or their candidates would never get the 50% threshold to get elected to their individual seats.

      Cameron had no choice but to hold a Brexit vote because that’s what the voters wanted. He had no choice but to honour the vote because that what the voting majority wants. He knows as soon as they broke the Brexit promise their party would not win on a preferential ballot where the majority is needed to get elected. No divide and conquer to get elected in Britain anymore, so they can’t just ignore the will of the people.

      The people of Britain wanted to remain a sovereign nation and have control over their economy, foreign policy, trade, taxes, representation, and immigration… and because they have a preferential ballot they were able to push back against the globalist bankers that wanted to take all that away.

      Brexit hasn’t happened yet. And there are no credible Parties in Britain that have yet been able to counter the “…we must export, or die” mentality that’s pervaded BOTH mainstream Parties there. How is having a ‘preferential ballot’ going to accomplish THAT? Short answer, it isn’t.

      Ireland, I think, is a rather poor example. It had a rather brief boom after it joined the EU. Based on low wages, mostly, and a lower cost of living. Now the wages have gone up, the jobs based on them being low are evaporating, and they have a much higher cost of living.

      You can look at other countries that have abandoned FPP and put in some so-called form of proportional representation to elect their governments, and I think you’ll find the expected benefits have fallen far short of what the proponents thought they were going to be, without exception.

Comments for this article are closed.