The final snapshot.
Provincial voting intention
Decided and leaning respondents · exact unweighted base not supplied
Undecided respondents are excluded from candidate shares and shown separately above. Percentages may be rounded.
Source: Northbound Insights, supplied report figures. Response base: Decided and leaning respondents · exact unweighted base not supplied. Subgroup interview counts were not supplied.
The Conservative estimate rises from 39% to 48% across the three waves, while the NDP moves from 43% to 38%. A provincial vote-share estimate and a seat model are distinct products.
The change behind
the topline.
One electorate.
Different patterns.
Early election call described as unnecessary and partisan
Reported attitude measure; exact wording, alternatives and question base not supplied
Conservative issue-trust advantage
Reported trust balance; exact issue question, comparison and component shares not supplied
Reported group differences are descriptive. Smaller bases, weighting and selection can increase uncertainty; no design-adjusted significance tests are claimed.
Vote share and seats
are different measures.
Supplied seat ranges
93 seats · majority threshold 47 · model not independently replicated
Seat ranges are supplied model outputs. No riding model, assumptions, joint simulations or validation were provided. Ranges are not confidence intervals and their endpoints cannot be added as a single seat allocation.
The change is in both the lead and its direction
The September 25 wave put the Conservatives four points behind the NDP. The October 11 wave placed them four points ahead, and the final wave ten points ahead. The Conservative estimate increases by nine points, the NDP falls by five, and the grouped smaller-party share falls from 8% to 3%. These are aggregate changes, rather than documented individual voter transfers.
A provincial lead coexists with different local orderings
The final regional figures put the NDP one point above the Conservatives in Metro Vancouver and five points above them on Vancouver Island. The Conservative advantages are wider in the Fraser Valley / Surrey and Interior & North categories. The provincial topline therefore does not describe every region in the same way.
The Green estimate is concentrated in the regional table
The Greens’ 23% on Vancouver Island is more than twice their 11% province-wide estimate. That is a notable pattern within the supplied figures, but its precision depends on the Island subgroup count and weighting. It does not establish that an individual Green candidate was ahead in a particular riding.
Smaller-party decline does not identify the destination of every vote
The grouped CentreBC / OneBC / other category loses five points across the displayed waves. The comparison does not prove that all of those respondents moved to the Conservatives, nor isolate the effect of the election call, a party leadership change or a municipal result.
Keep the supplied seat output inspectable
The supplied Conservative range of 62–66 is above the 47-seat majority threshold in a 93-seat chamber. That describes the submitted model output, not an independently replicated forecast. The information needed to audit the riding allocation and its uncertainty was not supplied.
How to read
this study.
The supplied methodology is preserved alongside its disclosure gaps, so the total sample, ballot base and subgroup estimates can be assessed separately.
Study design and disclosure · n=1,400
- Research provider
- Northbound Insights
- Report provenance
- Figures, release label and methodology supplied by Northbound for this website update on 25 October 2026. The underlying interviews have not been independently audited here.
- Release date
- 23 Oct 2026
- First publication of this web page
- 25 Oct 2026
- Fieldwork
- 20 Oct 2026 – 22 Oct 2026
- Population
- Eligible provincial voters in British Columbia
- Total interviews
- 1,400
- Ballot denominator
- Decided and leaning respondents · exact unweighted base not supplied. Effective sample size was not supplied.
- Undecided
- 7% of all respondents; not assigned to candidates.
- Interview mode
- 50% live-operator telephone interviews via landline and mobile; 50% proprietary online panel.
- Recruitment and sampling
- Stratified hybrid sample of eligible B.C. voters across four regional zones. Telephone-frame selection, panel recruitment probabilities and overlap treatment were not supplied.
- Weighting
- Age, gender, education and recalled 2024 provincial vote. Numerical targets, regional boundaries, weight trimming and effective sample size were not supplied.
- Supplied precision statement
- ±2.6 percentage points, 19 times out of 20
- Uncertainty assessment
- The release reports ±2.6 pp, 19 times out of 20. A conventional margin is not assigned here to the combined telephone and proprietary-panel result without a documented probability design and combined estimator.
- Commissioning / funding
- Not identified in the supplied material.
- Questionnaire / response rates
- Exact wording, order, response options, response and completion rates were not supplied.
- Subgroup bases / design effects
- Unweighted and weighted subgroup bases, weighting distributions and design-effect estimates were not supplied.
- Tracking design
- Separate wave toplines are supplied. Reinterviewed respondents and individual transitions are not documented.
Sample size alone does not validate a probability margin for a mixed-mode study. Reported margins are retained as source statements in the disclosure record. They are not used as confidence intervals for the charts, point-estimate gaps or subgroup estimates.
The figures,
open to inspection.
- Northbound Insights · report figures and methodologyRelease 23 Oct 2026 · supplied for this website on 25 Oct 2026. Earlier-wave metadata is left blank where unavailable.
- Official election / referendum information ↗Election context and candidate records; not a source or endorsement of this poll.
This report presents the figures supplied by Northbound. It does not reconstruct respondent records, infer missing categories or claim independent verification of the fieldwork. A point-estimate lead is not a forecast of the outcome. Publication standards.