#BCPoli | David Eby |
The Political Death of An Autocratic Spendthrift

#CdnPoli | Canadian Politics, BC Politics, Canada, canadian politics, Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

David Eby’s Political Waterloo: How Arrogance, Autocracy and Fiscal Irresponsibility Brought Down British Columbia’s NDP

There is an old lesson in politics that ambitious Premiers, convinced of their own brilliance, have a peculiar habit of learning only when it is too late: the public may forgive a government for making mistakes, but it is considerably less forgiving of a government that refuses to listen, refuses to admit its mistakes, and behaves as though the people who elected it have an obligation to accept whatever their political masters decide is good for them.

David Eby has now learned that lesson the hard way.

On October 24, 2026, British Columbians delivered their verdict on a Premiership that began with considerable promise, but increasingly came to be defined by centralized authority, extravagant spending, an astonishing faith in the righteousness of its own decisions, and a governing style that too often seemed to confuse political leadership with the imposition of one man’s will.

The result was a devastating political defeat for the BC New Democratic Party, leaving it with approximately 27 seats, a diminished caucus, and the unwelcome prospect of rebuilding its credibility from the opposition benches.

Eby had gone to the polls on September 22nd, despite having roughly two years remaining in his mandate. He did so against the reported misgivings of members of his own Cabinet and caucus, wagering that an early election would strengthen his personal authority and give British Columbians a fresh opportunity to endorse his government’s direction.

Instead, he turned an election he did not need to call into a referendum on his own judgment, or lack thereof.

The tragedy for the BC NDP is that its defeat was not inevitable.

Nor was it simply the consequence of an unfavourable political climate, an opposition that found its footing, or a weary electorate looking for change.

David Eby himself supplied his opponents with much of the material they needed.

Eby’s government accumulated grievances among municipal leaders, professional associations, citizens across British Columbia, housing advocates, and ordinary everyday folks who increasingly felt that their concerns were being treated as obstacles to be overcome rather than democratic voices deserving consideration.

The Premier who wanted to demonstrate that he was the smartest person in the room ultimately discovered that the room belonged to the voters.

And the voters were finished listening.

The Arrogance of a Premier Who Believed He Knew Best

To understand the defeat of the David Eby government, it is necessary to look beyond the election campaign and examine the political temperament that shaped his government.

David Eby arrived in provincial politics with a formidable reputation as a lawyer, an advocate for vulnerable people, and a politician prepared to take on difficult problems. His work with Vancouver’s Pivot Legal Society, beginning in 2007, reflected a commitment to people whose voices were routinely ignored by those with power.

That background should have served him well as Premier. It should have reminded him that government exists to serve people, not to instruct them on what they ought to want.

Somewhere along the way, however, the advocate became the authority, and the authority became increasingly convinced that his preferred solutions were the only sensible ones.

David Eby could be intellectually formidable, impatient with opposition, and dismissive of arguments he considered uninformed. Those qualities can be assets in a courtroom or a political debate. In government they can become habitual, liabilities of the first order.

A Premier cannot run a province as though every disagreement were an argument to be won and every critic an obstacle to be defeated.

Mayors and Councillors have responsibilities to their communities. Doctors have professional obligations to their patients. Lawyers have duties to their clients and to the administration of justice. Citizens have every right to ask whether the government is spending their money wisely. Members of a governing caucus have a responsibility to question their leader when they believe he is making a mistake.

David Eby’s problem was not that he exercised authority. Every Premier must do so. His problem was that his government increasingly gave the impression that consultation was an inconvenience, dissent was disloyalty, and compromise represented weakness.

The distinction matters.

Strong leadership means making difficult decisions after listening carefully to competing arguments. Arrogance means deciding that listening is unnecessary because the answer is already known.

British Columbians had ample reason to conclude that their Premier was increasingly practicing the latter.

Bills 44, 46 and 47: Victoria’s declaration of war on municipal autonomy

Graphic courtesy of Randy Helten and Stephen Bohus at CityHallWatch

Nowhere was this governing philosophy more evident than in Eby’s sweeping housing legislation.

In late 2023, his government introduced three major pieces of legislation: Bill 44, the Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act; Bill 46, the Housing Statutes (Development Financing) Amendment Act; and Bill 47, the Housing Statutes (Transit-Oriented Areas) Amendment Act.

Together, they represented a profound restructuring of the relationship between the provincial government and local governments.

The objective was understandable.

British Columbia faced an increasingly desperate housing affordability crisis. Young people were being priced out of the communities in which they had grown up. Renters struggled with escalating costs. Families found home ownership increasingly unattainable. The province needed more homes, and it needed them faster.

But a worthy objective does not automatically justify every means employed to achieve it.

Bill 44 required municipalities with more than 5,000 residents to permit small-scale, multi-unit housing on lots previously restricted to single-family homes or duplexes. Depending on lot size and location, the legislation permitted three or four units on many properties, with additional density possible near qualifying frequent-transit stops.

It also reduced the scope for public hearings on residential projects consistent with a municipality’s official community plan, while requiring local governments to update their planning documents and housing-needs assessments.

Bill 46 changed the financing framework for growth. It expanded the infrastructure costs that municipalities could recover from development, including certain policing, fire-protection and solid-waste facilities, and introduced amenity cost charges to help fund infrastructure such as parks, recreation facilities and childcare spaces.

Bill 47 went further still. It established mandatory transit-oriented development areas around designated rapid-transit stations and major bus exchanges, requiring municipalities to permit specified minimum building heights and densities and removing minimum residential off-street parking requirements within designated areas.

In practical terms, the province was telling municipalities that decisions historically made through local planning processes would increasingly be governed by provincial rules.

There is a powerful argument for provincial intervention when local zoning practices frustrate the construction of desperately needed homes. Municipal governments cannot indefinitely invoke neighbourhood character to prevent younger and lower-income residents from finding a place to live.

But there is an equally important democratic principle: communities must have a meaningful voice in determining how growth occurs, how infrastructure is financed, and how public services keep pace with development.

David Eby too often treated those principles as though they were mutually exclusive.

The provincial government could have pursued density while engaging municipal leaders in a serious conversation about implementation, infrastructure funding, transit capacity, school places, water and sewer systems, and the timing of new development. Eby could have made a more compelling case for change while acknowledging that municipalities possessed practical knowledge the provincial government did not.

Instead, the legislation became a symbol of a government prepared to impose its preferences and expect local elected officials to make the best of the consequences.

For Mayors and Councillors, the message was unmistakable: you may be elected by your residents, but when David Eby has decided how your community should grow, your discretion has limits.

That approach might produce uniformity. It does not necessarily produce trust.

And trust is not an optional extra in democratic government.

David Eby could have been remembered as the Premier who confronted exclusionary zoning and helped build a more affordable province. Instead, his handling of the housing reforms risked making him a symbol of provincial overreach.

The irony is that housing policy requires co-operation among every level of government, developers, infrastructure providers and the public. No single Premier can decree his way out of a housing crisis.

You cannot legislate homes into existence simply by changing zoning rules. You need financing, construction capacity, skilled workers, infrastructure and a viable economic environment. And you need governments capable of working together.

Eby understood the urgency of the housing problem. What he seemed unwilling to acknowledge was understanding a problem does not mean possessing every answer.

That was the recurring failure of his Premiership: an understandable sense of urgency becoming an excuse for insufficient humility.

When government reaches into the professions

The same pattern emerged in two other consequential areas: the regulation of medical professionals, and the governance of the legal profession.

Bill 36, the Health Professions and Occupations Act, was passed in 2022 and came substantially into force on April 1, 2026. It overhauled the regulatory framework for health professions, including consolidating regulatory colleges and expanding government oversight. The province presented the changes as a means of strengthening accountability, transparency and public protection.

Those objectives deserve to be taken seriously. Professional self-regulation is not infallible, and the public must be protected from misconduct, discrimination and failures of accountability.

But the question is not whether doctors should be accountable. Of course they should. The question is how that accountability can be strengthened without unnecessarily compromising the independence of professional judgment.

When government increases its influence over the bodies responsible for regulating physicians and other health professionals, it must explain how it will prevent political considerations from displacing professional expertise.

It must also demonstrate that the new arrangements will genuinely improve public protection rather than merely transfer authority to Victoria.

David Eby’s government did not escape serious criticism on these questions. The changes were consequential enough to warrant sustained consultation, careful explanation and a willingness to address the profession’s concerns.

Bill 21 removes the right of lawyers to regulate their own profession and was challenged by legal organizations in B.C. Supreme Court on constitutional grounds. Photo by Jason Payne /PNG

The same issue arose with Bill 21, the Legal Professions Act, passed in 2024. It established a framework for bringing lawyers, notaries and paralegals under a unified regulatory structure, changing the governance arrangements that had historically allowed the Law Society of British Columbia to regulate lawyers. The legislation prompted substantial opposition from legal organizations concerned about the independence of the legal profession.

These concerns were not trivial turf battles. An independent bar is an important safeguard in a constitutional democracy because lawyers must be able to represent clients challenging government decisions without fearing that the government itself will exert inappropriate influence over their professional regulator.

Reforming professional regulation is not inherently authoritarian. Neither is requiring greater accountability from doctors or lawyers. But independence, accountability and public oversight must be balanced carefully, especially when the state is restructuring institutions that may have to challenge the state itself.

The political failure lay in the impression that Eby’s government regarded established institutional independence as something to be reorganized from above, rather than a democratic safeguard that required exceptional care.

The more often a government centralizes authority, the more important it becomes for its leader to demonstrate restraint.

David Eby seemed to believe that the merits of his objectives would vindicate his methods. He underestimated how much trust could be lost along the way.

The fiscal recklessness that revived an old NDP stereotype

For decades, British Columbia’s more conservative political forces promoted a familiar accusation: give the New Democrats the keys to the treasury and they will spend the province into trouble. An NDP government, they insisted, couldn’t manage a popsicle stand in the heat of a British Columbia summer.

John Horgan understood that this caricature was politically damaging. Alongside Finance Minister Carole James, and subsequently Finance Minister Selina Robinson, his government sought to demonstrate that progressive government and responsible fiscal management were not mutually exclusive.

The Horgan years included substantial surpluses in several pre-pandemic budgets. That record helped undermine the notion that an NDP government was automatically a threat to the provincial treasury.

David Eby has done considerably less to sustain that achievement.

There is an important accounting distinction here. The audited surplus for 2022–23, the fiscal year in which Eby became Premier, was approximately $704 million, rather than $5.6 billion. His first full fiscal year, 2023–24, ended with an operating deficit of approximately $5 billion. The subsequent 2024–25 deficit reached approximately $7.3 billion.

The precise numbers matter. But so does the broader political question: how did a government that inherited a comparatively strong fiscal position move so quickly into substantial deficits and rising debt?

David Eby inherited major pressures that cannot simply be wished away.

Housing costs, healthcare demands, infrastructure requirements and the economic consequences of international trade disputes all impose genuine obligations on government. Public investment is not inherently wasteful, and borrowing for worthwhile infrastructure is not automatically irresponsible.

But these considerations do not absolve a Premier of the responsibility to establish priorities, assess the long-term costs of his decisions, and explain how public spending will be sustained.

The public is entitled to ask whether the government’s spending commitments were properly sequenced, whether promised benefits justified their costs, and whether the province was building sufficient fiscal resilience against an uncertain future.

David Eby’s government increasingly faced those questions against the backdrop of mounting deficits and debt.

That is how an old political stereotype returns: not necessarily because every expenditure was wrong, but because the government failed to persuade enough people that its spending was disciplined, sustainable and delivering results commensurate with the money being spent.

British Columbians were being asked to trust the Premier with ever-larger financial commitments while confronting affordability pressures in their own lives. For many households, the contrast was difficult to ignore.

A government cannot indefinitely substitute announcements for results, or the moral attractiveness of its objectives for a convincing account of what those objectives cost.

The voters’ verdict suggests that David Eby failed to make that case.

Big promises, disappointing delivery

Consider childcare, one of the most consequential examples of the gap between political ambition and the lived experience of British Columbian families.

The NDP made $10-a-day childcare a signature commitment in 2017. The idea was transformative: reduce the cost of care, help parents return to work if they wished, improve family finances and make early childhood education accessible to more children.

It was precisely the kind of policy that could have defined progressive government.

There has been genuine progress. British Columbia expanded fee-reduction programmes and increased the number of childcare spaces receiving support. The $10-a-day initiative became a real programme for participating families and providers, rather than remaining merely an election slogan.

But universal access to $10-a-day childcare was not achieved. Families continued to encounter shortages of spaces, uneven availability and costs that remained well above the advertised figure when they could not obtain a subsidized place.

The distinction between a programme that exists and a promise that has been fulfilled is not semantic. It is the difference between a government announcing a destination and actually getting people there.

David Eby’s government inherited the childcare commitment, but it also inherited the responsibility to deliver on it. Eight years after the original promise, families were entitled to ask why access to affordable, dependable childcare remained so difficult.

This was the wider weakness of David Eby’s Premiership. Its communications operation could explain the ambition behind its policies, but too often the government struggled to demonstrate that the results matched the rhetoric.

The same question applied to housing. The province could mandate zoning changes, establish density targets and accelerate planning processes, but ordinary British Columbians still needed homes they could afford.

It applied to healthcare, where systemic reform and new investments had to translate into timely access to care.

And it applied to the broader cost of living, where families were not interested in winning an ideological argument. They wanted to know whether their lives were improving.

As BC Green Party leader Emily Lowan put it, in the formulation supplied for this editorial, “Today’s bribe to British Columbians is tomorrow’s broken promise.”

It is a sharp political accusation, but it captures the danger of governing through a succession of attractive announcements without demonstrating consistent delivery.

A promise becomes a liability when it is repeated often enough that the public begins to measure the government by what remains unfinished.

Being “Eby-ed”: a cautionary tale for Canadian politicians

There is another lesson in Eby’s defeat, one that extends well beyond British Columbia.

Former Ontario Premier David Peterson’s 1990 defeat remains a cautionary tale about calling an early election when a government has no compelling reason to do so.

David Peterson had won a majority government in 1987. Three years later, he called an election while still enjoying the advantages of incumbency, only to see Bob Rae’s New Democrats defeat his Liberals and form government.

The decision became an enduring example of how a seemingly confident Premier can transform a manageable political situation into a personal catastrophe.

David Eby had his own reasons for calling an early election. He argued that the threat posed by U.S. President Donald Trump’s trade policies required a strong mandate. The Conservative opposition had been in turmoil, and its leadership had recently changed. Eby evidently believed the circumstances favoured an early vote.

But the opposition’s difficulties were not a permanent feature of British Columbia politics. They were a temporary advantage, and the Premier’s decision gave his opponents a common target.

Instead of allowing the Conservatives to work through their problems while the NDP governed, Eby gave them an immediate opportunity to unite around a straightforward question: why was the Premier asking British Columbians to vote again when the existing mandate had years left to run?

That question proved damaging because it was so difficult to answer convincingly.

A Premier who calls an unnecessary election assumes responsibility for the consequences. He cannot blame the calendar, the opposition, or the electorate when the gamble fails.

And when the gamble is motivated, even in part, by a desire to consolidate personal authority, the consequences can be especially unforgiving.

In the aftermath of October 24th, the expression “being Eby-ed” may well become shorthand in Canadian political conversation for a leader who mistakes a temporary advantage for a mandate to gamble with his government’s future.

The phrase would be cruelly appropriate.

The Election David Eby Did Not Need to Call

Source: CTV News / James Moore; The Canadian Press

The most consequential decision of Eby’s final months in office was not a housing bill, a budget announcement or a dispute with a professional association.

It was the decision to call the election in the first place.

On September 22nd, David Eby sent British Columbians to the polls with almost two years remaining in the ordinary electoral cycle. He chose to do so while facing concerns within his own political ranks and while municipal leaders had reason to object to the timing, which overlapped with local election campaigns.

Eby framed the election as an opportunity to secure a mandate for defending British Columbia against American economic threats. Yet his opponents had a more immediate question for voters: why should a province already struggling with affordability, healthcare pressures and fiscal uncertainty be asked to endure an unnecessary provincial campaign?

The decision consumed political attention, divided the government from potential allies and placed Eby’s leadership on trial.

In the end, the electorate delivered its judgment.

The preliminary election picture was devastating: the Conservatives emerged with a commanding lead, while the NDP was reduced to approximately 27 or 28 seats in the initial count, with final counting still to come. The Greens retained two seats. Eby announced his resignation as NDP leader, although he won his own seat in Vancouver-Point Grey.

For the New Democrats, the consequences were immense. A party that had governed British Columbia was left to contemplate opposition, renewal and the painful work of explaining how it had squandered its political advantage.

And consider what David Eby and his colleagues will not be able to celebrate as a government in 2027: the anticipated completion of the Millennium Line extension along Broadway to Arbutus Street, and the opening of the new St. Paul’s Hospital.

These are major projects with consequences for transit, healthcare and the future of Vancouver. They will proceed under a new political administration, and their eventual opening will belong to the people of British Columbia, not to any one Premier or party.

That is how government should work. Public achievements belong to the public.

Yet for David Eby, there is a bitter irony in leaving office before the completion of projects that could have formed part of his government’s legacy. He had the opportunity to remain Premier, continue governing, and allow British Columbians to judge his administration on the full record of its accomplishments and failures.

Instead, he chose an early election.

The decision followed him through the campaign, shadowing his announcements and competing with his arguments about the economy, housing and healthcare. Every time he asked voters to trust his judgment, they could ask why that judgment had led him to call an election he did not need.

He could explain his reasons, but he could not make the question disappear.

In that sense, the election became a referendum on something more fundamental than any individual policy: whether British Columbians trusted Eby to make decisions in their interests, even when those decisions were difficult or politically inconvenient.

On October 24, enough voters answered no.

The final lesson is not that strong governments should avoid ambitious reforms, or that premiers should never intervene when local institutions fail to act. British Columbia needs housing, reliable healthcare, affordable childcare and public infrastructure. It needs governments prepared to make difficult decisions.

But it also needs leaders who understand the limits of their own authority.

A Premier is not the province’s proprietor. A legislative majority is not a licence to disregard every objection. And intelligence, however formidable, is no substitute for humility.

David Eby may have been convinced that he possessed the answers British Columbia needed. His mistake was behaving as though the province’s other elected officials, professional institutions and ordinary citizens were simply required to catch up with him.

They were not.

The people of British Columbia had their own judgment to exercise, and they exercised it at the ballot box.

There is a final, melancholy lesson in all of this.

David Eby began his Premiership with the opportunity to show that progressive government could combine social ambition with fiscal discipline, institutional respect and a willingness to listen. He could have demonstrated that a government can pursue transformative housing reform without treating municipalities as adversaries, and that promises are most powerful when they are matched by delivery.

Instead, his final chapter was consumed by the consequences of an unnecessary election and the growing perception that his confidence had hardened into arrogance.

The man who sought a renewed mandate received a political repudiation. The Premier who wanted to demonstrate strength weakened his own party. The leader who believed he could impose his timetable on British Columbia discovered that voters had a timetable of their own.

David Peterson’s snap-election gamble became a cautionary tale for generations of Canadian politicians. David Eby’s has now joined it.

And perhaps that is the most enduring truth of October 24, 2026: no matter how clever the strategist, how persuasive the speechwriter, or how convinced a Premier becomes of his own indispensability, democracy retains the final word.

A leader may call an election to prove that he is right.

The electorate is under no obligation to agree.

Migawd, we thought we were angry about David Eby’s decision to call a snap election, and were concerned about today’s column as coming across as too pointed, critical and unkind to David Eby, and a seemingly mute Cabinet and caucus that allowed him to call a needless election that proved devastating for the provincial New Democratic Party.

We can’t hold a candle to the criticisms, and outright anger, of former Vancouver City Councillor / former Chief of Staff to Premier John Horgan, Geoff Meggs, who is withering in his denunciation of Premier Eby and his woefully inept, failed to deliver on NDP commitments, fiscally irresponsible, and incompetent New Democratic Party government.

In Meggs’s Substack article, Laying the foundations for a post-Eby BC NDP: a tough hill to climb, but we’ve been here before, Meggs writes that the seeds of the October 24 defeat were sown in the near-death experience of David Eby’s one-seat majority victory in 2024, creating a government that never really stabilized.

Meggs’ Substack column may be found here. Definitely worth a read.

Perhaps even more angry and disappointed — and mightily disheartened — is Ron Johnson, a longtime New Democratic Party stalwart and former NDP candidate in Vancouver whose decades of service to both the federal and provincial parties have made him a respected behind-the-scenes political operative.

An eminence grise of the New Democratic Party, Ron Johnson has contributed a wealth of institutional knowledge, strategic insight and political experience to the NDP, helping shape its campaigns, nurture its candidates and sustain its organizational strength. A steadfast New Democrat, Johnson represents the enduring commitment, loyalty and hard-earned wisdom of the party’s grassroots political tradition.

In Johnson’s Substack article, We must build a renewed BC NDP from the bottom up, he writes that social democrats and democratic socialists must work together to forge a revitalized membership-focused working people’s BC NDP and be ready to win in 2030.

Ron Johnson’s must-read Substack column may be found here.

Benjamin Netanyahu: The Political Survivor Who Has Finally Run Out of Road

Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

ISRAEL AT THE CROSSROADS: Will October 27 Finally Bring an End to the Reign of Benjamin Netanyahu?

After years of political turmoil, the catastrophe of October 7, 2023, the devastation of Gaza and an increasingly bitter confrontation over the future of Israeli democracy, voters face a question tomorrow that reaches far beyond the fate of one prime minister: Can Israel change direction without changing its fundamental understanding of its place in the Middle East?

On Tuesday, October 27, 2026, Israelis go to the polls in an election that could finally bring down Benjamin Netanyahu, the man who has dominated Israeli politics for much of the past three decades.

For Netanyahu, 76, the stakes could hardly be higher. His Likud party faces a formidable challenge from an opposition led by former Israel Defense Forces chief of staff Gadi Eisenkot. Polling published in the final days of the campaign places Eisenkot’s party, Yashar, ahead of Likud, while suggesting that Netanyahu’s existing coalition is unlikely to retain its parliamentary majority. Yet, as anyone who has followed Israeli politics knows, defeating Netanyahu at the ballot box and assembling a government capable of replacing him are two very different propositions.

This is a contest about much more than personalities. It is a referendum on the political consequences of October 7, 2023, the future of Israeli democracy, the country’s relationship with the Palestinians, the increasingly strained relationship with its international partners, and the question of whether Israel can emerge from years of war with a credible vision of peace.

For VanRamblings readers, there is also a more uncomfortable question: if Netanyahu loses, will Israel actually change, or will it simply replace one right-wing government with another that manages the conflict rather than resolving it?

Netanyahu’s Political Career Has Been Extraordinary

First elected prime minister in 1996, after defeating Shimon Peres, he subsequently returned to power in 2009 and remained prime minister until 2021. After a brief period in opposition, he returned to office in December 2022, leading what became one of the most right-wing and religiously conservative governments in Israel’s history.

His political genius has always been his ability to persuade a substantial portion of the Israeli electorate that, whatever his personal shortcomings, he is the indispensable guardian of the Jewish state.

Netanyahu speaks the language of national security fluently. He has cultivated a close relationship with American conservatives, positioned himself as an implacable opponent of Iran’s regional ambitions and repeatedly presented his leadership as the only reliable defence against Israel’s enemies.

But his extraordinary longevity has come at a cost.

His latest government depended on far-right nationalist politicians, including National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir and Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich, whose positions on Palestinian territory, Israeli settlements and the treatment of Palestinians have alarmed international observers and many Israelis.

Before October 7, Netanyahu’s proposed overhaul of Israel’s judiciary prompted enormous demonstrations. Hundreds of thousands of Israelis took to the streets to oppose measures they believed would weaken judicial independence and undermine the checks and balances essential to a functioning democracy.

The protests exposed a country deeply divided over its identity: a liberal, democratic state governed by the rule of law, or a state in which an increasingly powerful nationalist and religious coalition could reshape its institutions to protect its own political interests.

Then came October 7.

October 7, 2023: The failure that changed everything

The Hamas-led attack on southern Israel was the deadliest assault in the country’s history. Approximately 1,200 people were killed, and 251 were taken hostage. Communities were devastated, families were shattered, and Israelis experienced a profound collapse of their sense of security.

Three years later, the central political question remains unavoidable: how could a country with Israel’s formidable military and intelligence capabilities have suffered such a catastrophic failure?

Netanyahu has argued that responsibility for the intelligence and security failures was shared across the country’s security establishment. His critics counter that a prime minister who has spent years presenting himself as Israel’s indispensable security expert cannot escape responsibility for the greatest security disaster on his watch.

Reports that foreign officials warned of an impending threat before the attack have intensified scrutiny. Netanyahu denies allegations that he knowingly disregarded advance warnings, and those allegations must be distinguished from established findings. But his refusal to authorize an independent state commission of inquiry has reinforced suspicions that he is more concerned with preserving his political future than establishing the full truth.

The families of those killed, survivors of the attack and relatives of hostages have demanded accountability. Their anger has become one of the defining forces of the election campaign.

Netanyahu has sought to counter that anger by pointing to Israel’s military operations against Hamas, Hezbollah and Iran. For his supporters, those operations demonstrate his determination to defend the country. For his opponents, battlefield achievements cannot erase the failure that allowed October 7 to happen.

The question facing voters is whether they are prepared to accept another term from a leader who, in their view, has already had his opportunity to demonstrate that he can keep them safe.

Who could replace Netanyahu?

Gadi Eisenkot, Israeli general, politician, leader of the Yashar party, former Chief of Staff of the Israel Defense Forces, advocate for a two-state solution with the Palestinians

The opposition is not a single, ideologically unified movement. It is a collection of parties whose common objective is to remove Netanyahu, but whose views on security, Palestinian statehood, religion and domestic policy differ considerably.

Gadi Eisenkot and Yashar have emerged as a central force in the campaign. A former military chief of staff, Eisenkot presents himself as a disciplined, relatively unpretentious alternative to Netanyahu. He promises more accountable government and a return to competent administration, while retaining a hard-line approach to national security.

Eisenkot’s appeal is particularly significant among Israelis who remain politically conservative but have lost confidence in Netanyahu’s leadership. He offers them an opportunity to change the government without embracing a dramatic leftward shift in Israeli politics.

Naftali Bennett, Israeli politician, served as the Prime Minister of Israel from 2021 to 2022, alternate PM, July to November 2022, Minister without portfolio 2023 to 2024 in unity government

Yair Lapid, former journalist, Israeli lawmaker and leader of centrist Yesh Atid party

Naftali Bennett and Yair Lapid are another important part of the opposition picture. Their political partnership recalls the coalition that removed Netanyahu from office in 2021. Bennett, a former prime minister and religious nationalist, is hawkish on security and opposed to Palestinian statehood. Lapid, a centrist former prime minister, represents a more secular and liberal political tradition.

Yair Golan, leader of The Democrats, former Labour Party leader, reserve major general in the IDF

Yair Golan and The Democrats occupy a more explicitly social democratic position.

Golan, a former deputy chief of staff of the IDF, leads a party bringing together elements of Israel’s Labour and Meretz traditions. His political priorities include democratic institutions, social equality, opposition to West Bank annexation and greater accountability for settler violence.

Avigdor Lieberman, served as Minister of Finance 2021-2022, Deputy PM, 2006-2008 and 2009-2012

Other significant players include Avigdor Lieberman, a nationalist politician whose Yisrael Beiteinu party has clashed with the ultra-Orthodox establishment, and the Arab-led parties, whose parliamentary representation could prove decisive.

The fundamental difficulty for Netanyahu’s opponents is that their agreement on removing him does not necessarily translate into agreement on what should follow.

The likely election result: A defeat for Netanyahu, but not necessarily a new government

The latest polling available as of October 19 suggests that Netanyahu’s coalition is in serious trouble.

An election polling average puts the outgoing coalition at approximately 50 seats, well short of the 61 required for a Knesset majority. Eisenkot’s Yashar has been leading the party standings in most recent polls. But the opposition parties, taken together, have not established an indisputable path to a stable governing majority.

Israel elects its 120-member Knesset through proportional representation. Voters choose party lists, not a prime minister directly. The president subsequently consults political representatives and entrusts a member of the Knesset with attempting to form a government.

Consequently, the party winning the most seats does not automatically govern.

The Arab vote could be pivotal. Palestinian citizens of Israel constitute roughly one-fifth of the population, and Arab-led parties may hold the balance of power if the election produces a closely divided parliament. Yet both Netanyahu and major opposition figures have resisted committing to coalition arrangements with Arab parties, creating a potentially self-defeating obstacle to a change of government.  

VanRamblings’ assessment is that Netanyahu is more likely than not to lose his governing majority. Whether he actually leaves office will depend on the coalition negotiations that follow.

Another inconclusive election, followed by weeks of bargaining and political deadlock, remains entirely possible.

Could Eisenkot and Golan share power?

Possible: a coalition of Eisenkot (left), a security focused centrist, and Golan’s social democrats

One potentially attractive scenario for Netanyahu’s opponents would be a broad government bringing together Eisenkot’s security-focused centrists and Golan’s social democrats, with Bennett and Lapid or other centrists providing additional parliamentary support.

In such an arrangement, Eisenkot could plausibly take responsibility for national security and defense, while Golan and The Democrats press for a more socially progressive domestic programme.

It is an appealing division of labour on paper. A former military chief would oversee Israel’s defence, while a politician from the social democratic tradition would concentrate on domestic governance, democratic institutions and social cohesion.

But this should be understood as a possible political arrangement, not a confirmed agreement assigning those portfolios to Eisenkot and Golan. The opposition has not demonstrated that it can assemble a majority around that specific formula.

The differences would be substantial. Eisenkot is a security hawk who has rejected Palestinian statehood as presently proposed and supports strengthening some Israeli settlements. Golan has been more explicit about halting annexation and confronting extremist settler violence.

Their coalition would have to reconcile those positions while addressing the ultra-Orthodox exemption from military service, the cost of living, judicial independence, strained relations with Washington and the immense expense of rebuilding communities damaged by war.

The challenge would be to demonstrate that replacing Netanyahu means more than replacing the people occupying his ministers’ chairs.

Donald Trump and Netanyahu: An alliance of political convenience

Netanyahu and Donald Trump have cultivated one of the most consequential relationships in modern Middle Eastern politics.

During Trump’s first presidency, the United States recognized Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, moved its embassy there and recognised Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. The Trump administration also brokered the Abraham Accords, normalizing relations between Israel and several Arab states.

Netanyahu presented these developments as historic diplomatic achievements. His relationship with Trump reinforced his reputation as an internationally influential leader capable of securing American support.

Yet the relationship has always been transactional. Trump prizes displays of strength and political loyalty; Netanyahu needs American military assistance, diplomatic protection and support against Iran.

On October 18, Trump publicly endorsed Netanyahu, describing him as a formidable ally against Iran. The endorsement may energise Netanyahu’s supporters, but it also underscores the extent to which the Israeli prime minister has attached his political fortunes to an American president whose own priorities can change rapidly.  

Trump’s support is no guarantee of electoral success. Israeli voters, particularly those who believe their government failed them on October 7, will make their decision based on their own country’s experience.

Gaza, genocide allegations and the question of international justice

No discussion of Netanyahu’s future can avoid Gaza.

Israel’s military campaign following October 7 has devastated the territory, destroying homes, hospitals, schools and much of its civilian infrastructure. The resulting humanitarian catastrophe has generated international condemnation and allegations of grave violations of international law.

Netanyahu’s government insists that its war aims have centred on defeating Hamas and preventing another October 7. Hamas’s deliberate killing of civilians and hostage-taking were grave crimes. But the crimes committed by Hamas do not absolve Israel of its own obligations under international humanitarian law.

The legal distinction surrounding genocide is particularly important.

The International Court of Justice (ICJ), often called the World Court, is considering South Africa’s case alleging that Israel has violated the Genocide Convention. The proceedings remain ongoing. The court’s provisional measures were not a final determination that genocide had occurred.

Separately, the International Criminal Court (ICC) issued an arrest warrant for Netanyahu on November 21, 2024. The warrant concerns alleged war crimes, including starvation as a method of warfare, and crimes against humanity, including murder and persecution. It is not an arrest warrant charging him with genocide.

International Criminal Court. These are different courts with different mandates. The ICJ adjudicates disputes between states; it does not prosecute individual political leaders. The ICC prosecutes individuals for international crimes within its jurisdiction.

Could Netanyahu eventually face additional legal consequences, including proceedings related to genocide? Further legal developments are possible, but no outcome should be presented as predetermined. The relevant courts must assess the evidence and applicable law.

A defeat at the ballot box would not extinguish existing legal proceedings. Nor would it automatically lead to his arrest. Accountability depends on the courts, the evidence, and the willingness of states to honour their legal obligations.

What would a post-Netanyahu Israel look like?

A change of government could restore a measure of confidence in Israeli institutions, improve relations with European governments and reopen space for more pragmatic diplomacy with Arab states.

It could also permit an independent investigation into October 7, a reassessment of military priorities and a less confrontational relationship between the government and Israel’s judiciary.

A post-Netanyahu Israel should not be confused with a post-Netanyahu political ideology.

Eisenkot and Bennett are not advocates of an immediate Israeli withdrawal from all occupied Palestinian territory. Both are national security conservatives, and neither offers a straightforward path to Palestinian sovereignty.

For Palestinians, therefore, a Netanyahu defeat may offer some relief without delivering the transformation they need.

In Gaza, the immediate priorities must be durable security arrangements, humanitarian access, reconstruction, functioning hospitals and schools, and a legitimate Palestinian civil administration capable of governing without Hamas’s armed rule or indefinite Israeli military control.

Reconstruction cannot simply mean clearing rubble while leaving Palestinians without political rights, economic opportunity or control over their future.

The West Bank presents a different but equally serious challenge. Settlement expansion, settler violence, restrictions on Palestinian movement and proposals for annexation threaten to make a viable Palestinian state increasingly difficult to establish. Recent attacks on Palestinians and foreign observers have demonstrated the urgency of confronting extremist violence and ensuring accountability.  

Any new Israeli government that genuinely wishes to restore international credibility must confront these issues rather than merely changing the rhetoric surrounding them.

Is a two-state solution still possible?

The two-state solution — an independent Palestinian state alongside Israel, with mutually agreed arrangements for borders, security, Jerusalem and refugees — remains the most widely recognised diplomatic framework for resolving the conflict.

It is also in danger of becoming an aspiration without a constituency powerful enough to realize it.

Israeli public opinion remains deeply sceptical, shaped by decades of violence and the trauma of October 7. Palestinian public opinion is likewise marked by distrust, dispossession, political division and the destruction of Gaza. Recent research from the Pew Research Center illustrates the profound pessimism on both sides about peaceful coexistence.  

Yet the alternatives are hardly reassuring: permanent occupation, recurring wars, further settlement expansion, or a single political territory in which millions of Palestinians remain without equal rights.

A viable two-state agreement would require Israeli recognition that Palestinians have a right to self-determination, alongside credible security guarantees for Israel. It would require Palestinian leadership capable of governing legitimately, preventing attacks on civilians and negotiating a settlement. It would also require sustained international engagement, including meaningful participation by the United States and Arab states.

None of this will happen overnight. Nor will it happen simply because Netanyahu is gone.

But a government that rejects annexation, curbs settler violence, supports Palestinian civil governance in Gaza and engages seriously with a negotiated political settlement could begin to reverse the forces making peace increasingly unattainable.

October 27: More than a referendum on one man

Benjamin Netanyahu has survived political defeats, fractured coalitions, mass protests, corruption proceedings and extraordinary international pressure. His ability to outlast opponents has made him appear almost invulnerable.

This election may finally prove otherwise.

If Netanyahu loses, Israel will have an opportunity to begin repairing the damage inflicted on its democratic institutions, its international standing and its own citizens’ confidence in government. But the opportunity will be squandered if his successors merely reproduce his security policies under a less divisive public face.

A new government must be judged not only by whether it restores administrative competence, but by whether it can imagine a future beyond perpetual war.

For Israelis, that means security, accountability and a government that answers to its citizens. For Palestinians, it means survival, freedom, political representation and the right to determine their own future.

For the wider Middle East, it means replacing an endless cycle of violence with a political settlement that recognises the rights and security of both peoples.

Peace is not inevitable. Nor is it impossible.

The question facing Israeli voters on October 27 is whether they are prepared to give their country a chance to pursue something beyond the politics of fear — and whether the leaders waiting to replace Netanyahu possess the courage to take that chance.

For all the uncertainty surrounding this election, one thing is clear: removing Benjamin Netanyahu would be a consequential beginning. It would not, by itself, be the end of Israel’s political crisis, the end of the occupation, or the beginning of peace.

That harder work would start the morning after the ballots are counted.

#BCPoli | Prepare for a Change In Government

BC Politics, Politics, Vancouver, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

On Tuesday, September 22, 2026, BC NDP Premier David Eby — contrary to the demand of his Cabinet, and members of his caucus — announced a snap election, after meeting with Lieutenant-Governor Wendy Cocchia at Government House in Victoria. That means, Election Day is this Saturday, October 24th, one week after  municipal elections across British Columbia this past Saturday, October 17th. The upcoming election this Saturday is our province’s 44th provincial general election since Confederation.

David Eby’s 2026 B.C. election campaign: 20 major promises

David Eby began his campaign for re-election as British Columbia Premier on September 22, 2026, with a central message: protect jobs, make life more affordable, strengthen public services and build a more self-reliant provincial economy amid the trade dispute with the United States.

Two early announcements were particularly significant. On September 18, before formally calling the election, Eby announced a pause in the planned expansion of the provincial sales tax (PST) to professional services and said future BC Ferries vessels would be built in British Columbia. The PST delay was estimated to save businesses, local governments and others approximately $260 million in 2026–27.

Here, then is a curated list of commitments, based on the BC NDP’s published campaign material and election coverage available as of October 21, 2026.

Taxes, affordability and the cost of living

  • 1. Pause the PST expansion. Delay the planned application of the provincial sales tax to professional services until well after the U.S. trade war ends. The initial pause was announced on September 18;
  • 2. Cut gasoline and diesel prices. Suspend 10 cents per litre of the provincial motor fuel tax, with the NDP projecting that its combined measures could reduce pump prices by as much as 30 cents per litre. Plus, cracking down on excessive fuel prices, by giving the BC Utilities Commission a stronger role in enforcing pricing rules and limiting excessive industry margins;
  • 3. Limit grocery markups on essential foods. Cap retail profit margins on products such as milk, eggs, cheese, butter and poultry. As well as combat algorithmic price discrimination. Strengthen consumer-protection and privacy laws to restrict AI-powered pricing practices that charge consumers different prices based on their personal data;
  • 4. Freeze ICBC insurance rates for another three years. Extend the existing rate freeze, bringing the proposed period of frozen rates to a decade;
  • 5. Ask higher-income earners to contribute more. Increase provincial income-tax rates for the top two tax brackets and establish a new bracket for annual income above $1 million. The NDP says the changes would affect fewer than 4% of income earners and raise approximately $1 billion annually.

Jobs, manufacturing and economic independence

  • 6. Build the next generation of BC Ferries in British Columbia. Require future vessels to be built in Canada, expand the provincial shipbuilding industry and develop a Made-in-B.C. shipbuilding strategy, as well as establish a new B.C. shipyward, working with the federal government, shipbuilders and organized labour to develop a new shipyard, with up to $250 million available provincially to leverage private and federal investment;
  • 7. Create dedicated support for forestry manufacturers. Help tariff-affected mills modernize, produce higher-value products, reduce costs and find customers outside the United States;
  • 8. Prioritize B.C. and Canadian-made products. Introduce purchasing rules for provincial ministries, Crown corporations and health authorities to favour locally and nationally produced goods and materials where viable;
  • 9. Double critical-mineral production and exports, while expanding the capacity of the Port of Prince Rupert, doubling B.C.’s critical-mineral production and exports within five years, strengthening trade links beyond the United States;
  • 10. Help small businesses survive tariffs and wildfires. Continue targeted assistance, including interest-free loans of up to $1 million for eligible businesses through the Small Business Tariff & Wildfire Relief Fund. While also helping small businesses hire young workers. Offer a $5,000 refundable tax credit to eligible small businesses hiring a young person aged 18–30 for their first full-time, 12-month job;
  • 11. Expand food processing in B.C. Make use of eligible Agricultural Land Reserve properties poorly suited to primary food production, while protecting prime farmland and creating local processing jobs.

Health care and seniors

  • 12. Triple recruitment of health-care workers from the United States. Expand efforts to attract American doctors, nurses and other health professionals to work in B.C.;
  • 13. Make shingles vaccination free for everyone aged 50 and older. Expand access to vaccination by removing the cost for eligible adults in this age group.

Housing and child care

  • 14. Turn more empty condominiums into affordable homes. Pursue measures to bring more vacant condo units into use as homes people can afford;
  • 15. Add 7,200 before- and after-school child-care spaces. Expand school-based care to help parents find convenient care for school-aged children. While Introducing a universal child-care fee cap on child-care fees, modelled on Ontario’s approach.

Transportation and public infrastructure

  • 16. Give local residents priority in BC Ferries reservations. Introduce a pilot reserving 12% of advance-booking space for local residents;
  • 17. Increase funding for public transit. Add $40 million annually to BC Transit funding to expand bus service, improve connections between communities, while delivering rapid bus transit in Metro Vancouver, making seniors’ bus passes free for low-income seniors and extending free transit passes to an estimated 350,000 eligible seniors across B.C.;
  • 18. Double provincial funding for public libraries. Permanently increase annual provincial library funding from $14 million to $28 million.

Environment, public safety and community support

  • 19. Protect more of B.C.’s land and water. Continue the commitment to protect 30% of the province’s land and water by 2030. Plus, fund climate action through new resource revenues. Dedicate a portion of provincial revenue from new oil and gas development to climate programs, beginning with a proposed $50-million investment;
  • 20. Expand involuntary care options in the Okanagan. Advance plans to increase access to involuntary mental-health and addiction treatment for people who meet the applicable criteria. Also, strengthen protections against gangs, guns and extortion. Make organized crime and extortion a campaign priority, with additional measures aimed at protecting communities and businesses.

For all of the commitments made to the citizens of British Columbia by the David Eby BC NDP government seeking re-election, in all of the polls published in the final week of the election campaign, it would seem David Eby is on his way to ignominious defeat this upcoming Saturday evening.

With each passing day the polls and the projected seat count for what now appears to be the outgoing British Columbia New Democratic government only worsens.

Below you will find the results of intensive polling conducted in all 93 riding across British Columbia. First up, focusing mainly on Metro Vancouver.

Not bad for the BC NDP: 35 NDP; 2 Greens; 12 Conservatives. Next up: the Interior.

The entire rest of the province is turning blue. There are few, if any, safe seats for David Eby’s BC NPD outside of the Metro Vancouver region, with a handful of seats on Vancouver Island, and one on the Sunshine Coast.

The only question that remains is: what will David Eby do on Election Night? Speculation is that if the election is a rout, and Mr. Eby’s party is only able to secure 29 or so seats — a possible outcome according to internal polls conducted by the Conservative Party of British Columbia — Mr. Eby will resign as leader of the BC NPD on Election Night.

VanRamblings would prefer that Mr. Eby tender his resignation in the new year.

Prior to calling the snap election, David Eby made a commitment to the members of his Cabinet and caucus: if he were to win anything less than a comfortable majority on Election Night, he would resign the leadership of the BC NDP this upcoming late winter / early spring, in order that a New Democratic Party leadership contest might be called by the party brass. Chances are the leadership convention would occur in late March, or early April, when a new leader of the party would be chosen by the party membership.

The heir apparent party membership wants: Brad West, the popular three-term Mayor of Port Coquitlam, former Executive Assistant to BC NDP Minister Mike Farnworth and a former communications and political action co-ordinator for the United Steelworkers (USW) union in B.C. There is little doubt that Ravi Kahlon and Christine Boyle would mount effective, well-run, well-financed campaigns for the party leadership, as well.

With the help of her brother-in-law Avi Lewis, the leader of the federal NDP, there is little doubt that Ms. Boyle and her backers and supporters would mount a strong campaign. Not to mention which, Dr. Cailey Lynch, the Premier’s better half, would support a run by Christine Boyle to ascend to the leadership.

Ravi Kahlon — one of the most reliable and most competent Ministers in the BC NDP government this past 9+ years — wants the leadership, feels he is owed the leadership of the party so badly that he can almost taste it.

What does a government led by Conservative Party of British Columbia “interim” leader Lorne Doerkson mean for the people of British Columbia? In a word: chaos.

Lorne Doerkson is not the leader of the Conservative Party of British Columbia, he is only the “interim” leader of the party, even if he becomes the Premier.

The constitution of B.C.’s Conservative party requires a leadership contest be held to elect their leader.

The Conservative Party’s Board of Directors have been attempting to convince elected members not to run against Mr. Doerkson, such that he would be acclaimed leader.

If you believe that is a likely scenario, we have a bridge we’d like to sell you, cheap.

You just know the whack job / far right / conspiracy theorist / freedom convoy element in the party will run one of their elected members for the leadership, and mount a campaign to have her or him become the 44th Premier of the province of British Columbia.

So, all the time that a Premier Doerkson should be attempting to put a government into place, rather than focus on the tasks at hand, he’d be traveling across the province during the first five weeks of his new administration, attempting to keep the job British Columbians elected him to.

Only in the wild west of B.C. politics could such a disastrous scenario unfold.

#VanPoli | Vancouver Council’s Priorities Early in Their New Term of Office

#VanElxn 2026, #VanPoli Civic Politics, BC Politics, Canada, City Development Planning, Housing, News, Politics, Vancouver, Vancouver Votes 2026, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

(Re-published article, written by Isabella Zavarise for CTV Vancouver News)

Vancouver Councillors Pledge to Reverse Previous Council’s Decisions

Vancouver City Councillors say they’re ready to get to work and deliver on their campaign promises, following a new term that will see a left-leaning council led by the city’s first Green Party Mayor.

On Saturday, Vancouverites elected four Councillors from COPE and the Vancouver Green Party, as well as Lucy Maloney with One City and ABC’s Mike Klassen.

The Greens and COPE are already committing to some shared promises such as reviewing the city’s budget.

COPE City Councillor Sean Orr, who received the highest number of votes of any Council candidate, with 83,038, said that will be one of his first priorities following inauguration in November.

“We didn’t see a lot of transparency in the last budget,” he said.

“It was famously very small. It wasn’t line-by-line. So, we need to go in and look at that and see the mess that we can clean up, see some opportunities as well for some cost savings.”

Annette Reilly, a newly elected City Councillor with the Greens, agreed, adding that once the budget is reviewed, the party would like to re-introduce some of the initiatives that were scrapped in the previous four years under ABC, such as the Renters Office which was shuttered in 2023, and the Equity Office which closed last year.

Reilly said she wants to champion renewing leases for co-ops, and address faster permitting for child-care spaces.

“That’s something I’d like to focus on right away,” she said.

Both Orr, Maloney and Reilly support reversing the ban on net-new supportive housing.

Orr said he will also be initiating a motion to bring back the city’s Living Wage Policy, which was scrapped in January, and will advocate for greater funding for libraries and recreation centers.

“Vancouver does have a lot of money, and we can fully fund the things that make Vancouver great, like our arts organizations,” he said.

COPE’s platform included a mansion tax, which would impose a one per cent tax on homes over $5 million to pay for public housing.

“We definitely think that there’s a lot of wealth in Vancouver, and that wealth can be redistributed,” said Orr.

As for the Vancouver Police budget, Orr said he believes there will be cost savings there.

He added that he supports the Greens’ campaign promise to introduce a Community Response Outreach Workers Team to respond to non-emergency calls regarding homelessness, public intoxication, and mental health crises.

“Getting mental health off of the plate of the police,” Orr said.

“We know that they don’t want to be doing that work either, and we need to be addressing that proactively, not re-actively.”

Both Orr and Reilly added they’re looking forward to the next term, and plan to work across party lines.

Lucy Maloney, with One City, said, “Vancouver residents have clearly expressed their desire for a progressive majority working collaboratively.”

Maloney added she’s committed to deliver results residents expect, “by drawing on our diverse perspectives.”

ABC’s Mike Klassen shared a similar sentiment, adding he looks forward to working constructively with his colleagues, regardless of political affiliation.

“I recognize that my role this term will be different, but I’ll seek common ground wherever possible while ensuring Vancouverites have a strong, independent voice at City Hall.”

There is a great deal of work to be undertaken by the incoming Vancouver Council.