Talk:BC United

Move back?

Obviously a bit premature now, especially if a few MLAs still run under the BC United banner, but if the party truly is dead, would it make sense to move it back BC Liberal Party, considering that was the party's name for 99% of its history? -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Should they be separate pages? Likely not as it's the same political party. When does BC Liberal/United ceased to exist? GoodDay (talk) 22:45, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

If the party is truly over — formally and legally, deregistered by Elections BC, etc — then moving back to the old title would be sensible for the reasons you said. If, however, BC United continues to technically exist and fields a handful of candidates to keep its registration (like Progressive Conservative Party of Saskatchewan, or until last year, British Columbia Social Credit Party), then it should stay at the current name. But we won't know the situation for a few years, probably. — Kawnhr (talk) 23:33, 28 August 2024 (UTC)

Even if the party remains dormant but continues to be registered, the name should probably be reverted back similar to Alberta Social Credit Party given that party's current registration as the "Pro-Life Association", since it will have used the Liberal name for all of its relevant history Windfarmer — talk 02:48, 29 August 2024 (UTC)

100% should NOT be considered for retitling for several months until things very clearly shake out. —Joeyconnick (talk) 02:03, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

This page should be separated into the following two, with explanation of their relationship noted in both articles.

• British Columbia Liberal Party - in essence an extinct political party, but as a entity of substantial historical significance for the province. As a subject matter it having its own article in an encyclopedia would not be subjective to much debate in normal circumstances.
  Comparable to: the CCF. (The various CCF entities each have their own articles even though they were formally folded into NDP entities. While the "folding into" process was more involved for the federal party, in some provincial cases they were not that much more than a name change.)
• BC United - an extant minor/fringe party with no current representation, or any meaningful influence in electoral politic.
  Comparable to: Libertarian Party or Freedom Party

I think the decision should be focus on the substance of the entity. Party registration only became a thing in the 60s when political financing became regulated. With that absence of formal registration in mind, there is really nothing to connect the Liberal Party that produced the Brewster-Oliver governments of 1910s~20s or Pattullo government in the 1930s had no meaningful or actual connection to the BC United.

This separation should be actions without further delay. I don't really see any reason to wait for BC United to be deregistered. Even if it is deregistered, I would still think it should stay as a separate article. I suspect in 10 years we may see BC United more appropriate as a subsection of a short-lived breakaway fraction of the still active Conservative Party of BC and as the death match of the Liberal Party. More importantly, it is entirely possible for the BC United to be seized by a random small group and keep its registration alive as a fringe party for a long time.

(Come to think of it, political parties with substantially the same policy/people being re-instituted or re-branded is a rather routine event in a lot of Latin America Asian countries. Japan and Thailand, both held election recently, are actually kind of perfect examples each in totally different ways.) Milton Chan (talk) 07:30, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

That's all nice but there is absolutely zero sourcing that describes BC United as anything but the renamed British Columbia Liberal Party. If they return to the BC Liberal Party branding at some point, we can rename then. Until then, there is zero rush. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:49, 13 February 2026 (UTC)

Splitting the article

I propose splitting this article into BC Liberal Party (or Liberal Party of British Columbia) and BC United. Given that 9/10ths of the party's history was as a Liberal Party (and in the 20th century a centrist or centre-left party) I think that title would better represent the bulk of this article. BC United can be a separate article for now. If the party formally dissolves before the next election then merging the two articles would be an option. Wellington Bay (talk) 11:33, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

We discussed this above (#Split) and there was consensus against such a split. I don't think anything has changed to revisit the question — sure, we may be looking at the impending demise of the party, but that only bolsters the argument that there isn't enough to say about BCU to warrant its own article. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:37, 30 October 2024 (UTC)

From the point of view of 2026, if the party does not run candidates in a future election, does it change things? Considering most of its historical doings were done as the BC Liberal Party... I do wonder if it should be the article title. Wait and see I guess. Dan Carkner (talk) 19:04, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

Separate articles

At what point, if any, do we create two separate BC Liberal Party and BC United articles? For a similar situation of a longstanding party changing its name see Social Credit Party of Canada and Christian Freedom Party of Canada and, for that matter, Conservative Party of Canada (1867) and Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. Wellington Bay (talk) 20:55, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

unless the BC United have a whole new era that we have to cover on here, I see no reason to separate them. If it remains a defunct party that exists on paper only, it was just a name change at the end of the party's existence and there is no separate story to tell. my 2 cents. Dan Carkner (talk) 21:24, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

If the party does not run at least two candidates in this election then it will be automatically deregistered under Section 168 of BC's Election Act - the deadline for candidate registration is October 2, I believe. If the party does become defunct should the name of this article be changed back to British Columbia Liberal Party as the the bulk of the article, and the bulk of the party's existence, including several terms in government, was under that name and "BC United" would be more or less an epilogue if not a footnote. Wellington Bay (talk) 21:48, 29 September 2026 (UTC)

on that, I agree. Dan Carkner (talk) 00:38, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Another example is the Reform Party of Canada becoming the Canadian Alliance. These are legally the same party, but underwent a name change and rebrand. There is certainly precedence for separating the articles for BC Liberal and BC United as well. —WildComet ^talk 04:04, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

We discussed this in 2023 and there was a consensus against a split at that time; I don't think anything has really changed. Agree with Wellington Bay and Dan Carkner that, if the party goes defunct (and it looks like it will), a move back to British Columbia Liberal Party would be suitable. — Kawnhr (talk) 05:42, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

I agree. If the party becomes defunct following this election, moving back to the Liberal name would be appropriate for the reasons above.-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 06:56, 30 September 2026 (UTC)

Successor

Some may argue CentreBC is the spiritual successor of BC United but it is certainly not the legal successor and shouldn't be described as such in the infobox as @Derek1022: has attempted to do. Wellington Bay (talk) 16:08, 3 October 2026 (UTC)