Talk:People's Alliance of New Brunswick

Untitled
There is nothing wrong with this page. It should not be deleted. Shawnrouse (talk) 00:38, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

As 2nd VP of this party i have doublechecked all information here It is in and of itself generally accurate including the party website and the party has been registered as a political party with Elections NB there is no questionable content on this page and i feel it should not be deleted Carlbainbridge (talk) 14:49, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Proof of Socialism?
I have removed the reference to socialism under ideology as it is not clear to me the party claims to be socialist nor is it clear from the policies they have adopted. Wilson (talk) 01:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 9 one external links on People's Alliance of New Brunswick. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100702024936/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/new-brunswick/story/2010/06/09/nb-panb-official-party-status-221.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2010/06/09/nb-panb-official-party-status-221.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100715083426/http://www.cbc.ca:80/canada/new-brunswick/story/2010/07/10/nb-alliance-against-areva.html to http://www.cbc.ca/canada/new-brunswick/story/2010/07/10/nb-alliance-against-areva.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130927050537/http://peoplesalliancenb.com:80/what-s-new/179-government-provincial-hiring-policy-concerns-people-s-alliance to http://peoplesalliancenb.com/what-s-new/179-government-provincial-hiring-policy-concerns-people-s-alliance
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131220164052/http://peoplesalliancenb.com/what-s-new/208-people-s-alliance-responds-to-acadie-nouvelle-editorial to http://peoplesalliancenb.com/what-s-new/208-people-s-alliance-responds-to-acadie-nouvelle-editorial
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131220170603/http://peoplesalliancenb.com/what-s-new/187-universite-de-moncton-excludes-people-s-alliance-from-another-political-debate to http://peoplesalliancenb.com/what-s-new/187-universite-de-moncton-excludes-people-s-alliance-from-another-political-debate
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131220164230/http://peoplesalliancenb.com/what-s-new/219-people-s-alliance-say-potashcorp-layoffs-highlight-need-for-royalty-changes-in-new-brunswick to http://peoplesalliancenb.com/what-s-new/219-people-s-alliance-say-potashcorp-layoffs-highlight-need-for-royalty-changes-in-new-brunswick
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131220164411/http://peoplesalliancenb.com/what-s-new/188-telegraph-journal-people-s-alliance-looks-to-make-inroads to http://peoplesalliancenb.com/what-s-new/188-telegraph-journal-people-s-alliance-looks-to-make-inroads
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20131220164551/http://peoplesalliancenb.com/what-s-new/206-people-s-alliance-committment-on-shale-gas-issue to http://peoplesalliancenb.com/what-s-new/206-people-s-alliance-committment-on-shale-gas-issue
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140503202827/http://peoplesalliancenb.com/policy/89-policy-releases/246-people-s-alliance-mla-compensation-reform-policy to http://peoplesalliancenb.com/policy/89-policy-releases/246-people-s-alliance-mla-compensation-reform-policy

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 14:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Updates and party philosphy
I've added some "planks" for the upcoming 2018 election that I could find from news/party websites. After seeing the debate/switching of the philosophy of the party; I went to wiki's definitions of center-right, right-wing populism, populism and democratic etc.. I see no connection to facist groups, nor anti elitism. "Right-wing populism is distinct from conservatism, but several right-wing populist parties have their roots in conservative political parties." - it seems they drew from both Liberal and Conservative sources for support and policy. "Democracy is sometimes referred to as "rule of the majority".[2] Democracy is a system of processing conflicts in which outcomes depend on what participants do, but no single force controls what occurs and its outcomes." - this looks to closer to the ideals but it doesn't seem to work with the whole "right, center, left" labels. Although the 2014 platform contains several "left" or socialist based ideas, it seems the main message is fiscal conservatism. I totally agree with populist distinction though; it fits the current profile, at least in western politics, not so much the European standard though. Will keep tabs on the page and update as new releases for the platform and if anything "interesting" arises. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prosequence (talk • contribs) 03:04, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

Hello Prosequence! First of all thank you for the updated information and for taking part in the discussion on this Talk page. While I'm not necessarily opposed to using the term “center-right populism” as a bit of a compromise (although judging by its lack of a Wiki page, it doesn't seem like a common term), I think we disagree on the meaning of “right-wing populism”. For one, right-wing populism doesn't imply a connection to fascist groups (as I understand it, and correct me if I'm wrong, fascism is a type of right-wing populism but not all right-wing populism is fascism). According to Wiki's page on the subject, “Right-wing populism is a political ideology which combines right-wing politics and populist rhetoric and themes. The rhetoric often consists of anti-elitist sentiments, opposition to the system and speaking for the 'common people'”. In my opinion, this fits the PANB to a tee, and let me explain why.

First, with regards to its rhetoric: I think there is no doubt that it is populist (which you seem to agree with), most notably as the name of the party suggests. I would argue that it is also anti-elitist (which is more related to the populism component of the term than to the right-wing one). For example, see this excerpt from a nov. 9th 2016 statement by Kris Austin published on the party's website (https://www.peoplesalliance.ca/single-post/2016/11/09/REJECTION-OF-ESTABLISHED-POLITICS%E2%80%A6) and in the local press:

“Americans asked themselves if the traditional status quo politics has really been working for them, and they used the ballot box to give the answer. No doubt our own political elite here at home felt the cold chill of such a decision, and are scrambling to stop the inevitable. As Trump cleverly stated, it’s time to drain the swamp.”

So not only is the party comfortable associating itself with a clearly right-wing populist figure like Trump (and others in this statement: https://www.peoplesalliance.ca/single-post/2017/05/28/KRIS-AUSTIN-COMMENTARY-AROUND-THE-WORLD-AND-HERE-IN-NEW-BRUNSWICK-PEOPLE-ARE-DEMANDING-REAL-POLITICAL-CHANGE), but it is also in this instance using anti-elite/establishment rhetoric.

As for the source of their support and policy, I see no indication that they are drawing from Liberals. In fact, Kris Austin is himself a former PC candidate. What are some of their policies that are left-wing/socialist or inspired by the Liberals in your opinion? Looking at the party's “What we believe” page (https://www.peoplesalliance.ca/what-we-believe), three points are clearly right-wing, and two are somewhat neutral.

As I see it, the provincial Progressive-Conservative party is an example of an actual center-right party. But in many ways, the PANB is to the right of the Progressive-Conservatives: for example, cutting MLA's wages as well as their pensions in favor of a private sector solution. See also the party's position on privatizing NB Liquor and upcoming sale of cannabis, and its plans to eliminate various taxes. Then there is its platform with regards to language rights: the party's stances and rhetoric in this area seem to have shifted around over the years, but the recurring themes are that “duality” and the province's Language Commissioner should be done away with. As you may know, both these things are explicitly guaranteed by the Official Languages Act. So it means that the party is in favor of rolling back at least some linguistic rights, which makes them closer to the defunct COR Party of NB than to center-right/moderate conservatives who are more about largely maintaining the status quo (with incremental change) than about reverting to a previous state of affairs.

Anyway thanks again for sharing your thoughts and for reading this wordy comment. The party's ideology has now been changed to “Will of the people” which I'm sure you'll agree is nonsense. So I would suggest we change it back to either Center-right populism or Right-wing populism, depending on what you (or others) think. Let me know! Pipicacalol69 (talk) 14:18, 28 February 2018 (UTC)

Content dispute
I don't want to get into an edit war, but the last changes to this page were made by what looks like a member of the party (TheBoo77 - their only contributions to Wikipedia are to scrub this page of what they consider to be negative info). Among the "false content" they have removed, there's the mention that Kris Austin had run for the PC nomination in Grand Lake - Gagetown (which he did); also deleted the part where it was noted than an ex-Liberal (Leroy Armstrong) had cited bilingualism as a reason he joined PANB (look at the CBC article cited as source - that's precisely what Armstrong claimed); and for some reason they also deleted the entire section about the party's difficulties and perceptions in Francophone New Brunswick (second time TheBoo77 does this, even though sources are cited for all of this), as well as the paragraph on the party's support in polls and general elections. And the icing on the cake: they changed the party's ideology to centrism. If someone can show how PANB is centrist, be my guest, but going by the article on right-wing populism, it seems like the best fit by a wide margin. So I'm going to manually revert this user's changes, since clearly they were motivated by the desire to influence perception of their party, which strikes me as going against Wikipedia's guidelines. If you (TheBoo77 or others) think these edits were justified, please explain them on this Talk page and I'll revert my last edits. Cheers, Pipicacalol69 (dumb name I know) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pipicacalol69 (talk • contribs) 13:25, 23 October 2017 (UTC)

Adding contraversial information
It seems users who are rival supporters continue to add negative content to this page. As this seems to be allowed, I tested this out on the P.C. partys wiki page to add their creating of the language commissioners office, complete with accepted links as well as expelling an MLA who question duality and links to the national broadcaster story. These were removed. The best course of action would be to avoid an editing war. Lets keep wikipedia clean as all political parties have contraversial history. Can we please play nice and leave that stuff out? If not, we might as well add controversial stories to each party, such as a current sitting MLA for the P.C.s who tried to meddle with DTO and public drunkness in the streets of fredericton being unruly with the Fredericton police for as examples. Theboo77 (talk) 20:44, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
 * thanks for finally agreeing to talk this out. I'd appreciate however if you could stop accusing me of being a "rival supporter", "a member of a rival party", "a user on Twitter named X", etc. This not going to lead to a fruitful discussion, and on top of that, attempting to out users goes against Wikipedia's policies on harassment . On the topic of Wikipedia's policies, please read the policies on COI editing, specifically the best practices . I'm sure you will concede that your focus on Wikipedia these last years has been on this political party. The few edits you have done on related political articles have all involved the PANB in one way or another, if they weren't just sporadic mundane edits that added little value, such as changing "northeastern" to "northeast of". While I don't see any reason to oppose adding a section for controversies on any party's article if it's noteworthy enough, in your last post it seems clear that the reason you have chosen to add those controversies and not others (such as the one you have mentioned just now) was because they relate to what is arguably one of the PANB'S core policies, namely those that have to do with official languages. The same thing goes for a previous (and only, as far as I can see) edit you have done and which I reverted on the PC's article. All of this considered including your disclosed COI is easy to perceive as pushing a point of view.
 * As for the content of this particular edit you have been insisting on, could you start by providing some recent news articles describing the party as "center-right"? Here's one among many placing it to the Right of the Progressive Conservative Party: . When it comes to your second addition in this edit, you're right: the article does claim "His message is a mixture of economic conservatism, rural populism and opposition to some aspects of official bilingualism and language duality". As for changing "bilingualism" to "duality" in that second paragraph, the article reads "Armstrong told CBC News he can't accept traditional Liberal policies, such as support for bilingualism" . If the party has since made a correction to the news report, please provide a link. Finally, with regards to the poll, my suggestion was the following. It's true that one poll gave the party 15%, and it's also notable that this sudden increase in support is a recent phenomenon according to the sources provided.
 * So I'll update the article to reflect what the sources show until you can provide some that contradict what is written, and please try to collaborate with other editors before reverting it back again. It's important to try to work on a consensus basis as much as possible especially when the subject matter is political or contentious.A slithy tove (talk) 12:30, 23 September 2018 (UTC)

Ok. I have added several times the most recent poll, which again shows 14.8%. I have separated the two into both individual citations. You also continue to say I have a COI, all is noted on my page. Not because I am a follower or supporter, but after judging other parties wiki pages, this one seems to be loopsided in the negative when the rest have negative histories but somehow avoid having this edited to their page for long before it is quickly removed. Theboo77 (talk) 02:55, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
 * The poll giving PANB 15% is already mentioned in the article. Your COI disclosure linked on top of this Talk Page claims you have been asked by this party to update their article. And, for the record, your dubious edit on the PC's article is still up, so clearly your theory about controversial information doesn't hold up. Please address the specific points I have brought up in my last post with regards to the content of the edits before reverting it back again.A slithy tove (talk) 12:43, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Is it really that shocking that this page has "more negative information" than other parties? It's a fairly new party and they already have an history of their candidates making inane and extremist comments on social media. Their campaign runs on "screw French people's rights". Of course there is more negative information... because the people running as candidates for this party are not good people compared to those running for established parties. If you want equal amounts of positive and negative coverage as other parties, then have equal amounts of positive and negative contributions to the province as other parties. No one would complain Jeffrey Dahmer gets more negative coverage than Bill Gates. 00:33, 25 September 2018 (UTC)

Any plans to do something about the neutrality of the article?
The platform reads like it was written by a slick People's Alliance politician, not by a person aiming to objectively describe their platform. The material should be put into a more neutral language, and should involve less pomp.--Ollyoxenfree (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2019 (UTC)


 * If it reads like it was written by a People's Alliance politician, it's because it was. In fact, much of this article currently is copy-pasted from the PANB's website. This version of the page dates back to a user named "LarryLynch miramichi", and a quick Google search shows that name to be closely linked to the party. Apparently, this is not the first time someone affiliated with the PANB has tried to change this article. The page should be reverted to a prior version, which could probably use some improvements, and then it should be protected from edits for a while. Friggin Heck (talk) 13:03, 16 October 2019 (UTC)