Talk:New Blue Party of Ontario

Please keep this article unbiased

Hello. I like the direction this Wikipedia article is going. So far, after looking over it, it seems very unbiased. I would like it to keep going in the direction of it being unbiased. Make sure any major change to the article that may or may not involve bias is solved here. Thank you. Grayinator (talk) 01:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• New Blue Banner Medium.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

New Blue vs. Jim Karahalios

Removed/re-wrote some sections of this article as it was reading more like a biography of Jim Karahalios rather than a description about the party. A wiki page for Jim Karahalios has been created where such content is better suited.Mr. No Funny Nickname (talk) 14:41, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Political position

Is there any basis for labeling this party far-right? Are there any policy positions or rhetoric on the part of the leader the claimant could cite that could bolster what is, on its face, an extreme claim? New Blue appear to be (policy and rhetoric-wise) marginally to the right of the Ontario Progressive Conservatives (described in their article as centre-right), at centre-right to right-wing.

Scrutonianobserver (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

There are several points within their own party platform which warrant an ambiguous approach to their ideological position. Firstly, ideological position is not something that can be determined through a scientific method, and it is up to the interpretation of political minds and ideologues who study the subject of political science. With that being said, the basis in which ambiguousness is necessary is due to the party platform, which is mentioned in the "New Blueprint" page of the party website.

Some of the policies which the New Blue party advocate for would be considered strictly conservative, meaning that the party would fall between centre-right and right-wing, as many would hope for the party to be illustrated as. These examples include "Grow Ontario's economy", "Provide tax relief" and "Restore dignity and transparency in our healthcare", which are similar to the platform points of traditionally conservative parties in Canada, including the Conservative Party of Canada. One of the key distinctions, however, is that the CPC does not advocate for as dramatic of a tax deduction as the NBPO, which would lean the latter more toward the right-wing.

It is the following policies that raise an eyebrow to the political scientist, which are "Renew political accountability", "Defund the establishment media and promote a free press" and "Reform education". All of these statements could sound like reasonable policies to the naked eye, but statements such as these are indicative of dogwhistle politics, a political tool used by ideologues and some politicians in order to tout specific rhetoric that can go under the radar to the general public. In order to accurately explain this, I will be making specific reference to the platform.

In reference to renewing political accountability, far-right political parties and organizations use this as a dogwhistle in order to covertly tell their base that the party wishes to eliminate some sort of foundational institution in order to make that specific party's life easier. This is referenced in the platform under "banning lobbyists", which would expedite governmental functions by barring dissent from thinktanks and focus groups. Why these groups are important is because these groups are advocates for non-governmental organizations, whether they be corporations or activist groups. Without lobbyists, the government would make decisions monolithically through its leader, and due to the party discipline that exists in Canada, that leader would have unchecked power.

Many right-wing groups have voiced their opinions on how they feel about entities like the "establishment" or the "media", which they tout would be replaced with a free press. The "free press" argument seems like an unbiased position to take, however it is contradicted by another right-wing talking point that the establishment media is inherently left-wing. This would mean that the promotion of a free press would only gain the presence of media groups that further skew to the right, including far-right media (which is the ultimate goal of disestablishing the press). This could be considered a dogwhistle, although it's not a very good one.

The final point is the reformation of education, which is another far-right dogwhistle, although with a more contemporary twist. So far the points of ideological contention have been more traditional forms of promoting far-right policies through dogwhistle politics, but this is influenced by the pushback of "'woke' activism" through school choice programs, an institution that has been championed by right-wing libertarians for over two decades. The reference to "critical race theory" in the platform is also an indication of the party's far-right skew, as CRT does not (and potentially may never) exist in the current curriculum in any Canadian province. The issue of critical race theory has become a far-right talking point in the United States, and the idea has seeped into the fringes of the political right in Canada. The reference to "gender identity theory" was puzzling to me, as I had never heard of the term (another indicator for whether a political party skews to the far-right), however it became clear to me that the party refers to the "theory" of "gender identity". While gender identity can be debated in a political setting, the science behind gender identity is progressively become more clearly in favour of it being a permanent fixture in public life, which would necessitate educating those at least at the secondary level as to what gender identity is. The method of teaching the subject is not what the party has trouble with; it is the fact that the subject exists at all. Not to mention that "reducing administrative costs" is a dogwhistle for defunding public schools, which is also a traditionally far-right ideological position.

I am not advocating for the party to be labelled as "far-right" exclusively, but I am stating that there is a good reason to provide nuance as to what the political position of the party is. This is why I made the edit from "right-wing" to "Right-wing to far-right", and I hope that we as a community can understand, as it has been laid out before us, why it is important to label fringe political parties with seemingly ambiguous platforms as nuanced. TheHelixYT (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Due to Wikipedia policies of WP:NOR, we cannot include in in the articles until WP:RS have also described the party as such. Saxones288 (talk) 05:50, 23 April 2022 (UTC)

It appears that someone has used the Party's constitution as a source for political positions, when the constitution makes no such mention. However, here we have a "Principles" section, while the Simcoe Reformer here also gives some insight into this Party's ideologies including a stated opposition to "critical race theory". B ased on these, I would feel safe using "social conservatism" and "right-wing" in the infobox in addition to that's already there. We definitely need more sources before we can call this party far-right, though. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 13:58, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Saxones288, I provided a reliable source. You reverted and didn't bother replying to me here (despite telling me to come here, which I already did!!!!!), however you left the Party's own constitution as a source? Why? A manual revert would have been far more appropriate here instead of removing my source entirely. -"Ghost of Dan Gurney" 12:40, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

2022 platform

Should we add a section under Ideology and principles for their 2022 platform? — Preceding unsigned comment added by WatchfulRelic91 (talk • contribs) 18:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Please do not use sources that give incorrect info

CVVnews.com states that Jim karahalios is first minister of provincial parliament for his party when this is false, his wife Belinda Karahalios is the first minister for the New Blue party, also it seems this source is just making up political positions for this party which the party itself does not claim to hold. The source refers to Jim Karahalios as a "PoliticianPolitician" so this is not a reliable citation source. RsNterra (talk) 06:33, 9 June 2022 (UTC)