Talk:Country Alliance

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I've reverted Matturn's revert, as the original was fairly badly written. For starters, it had obvious spelling mistakes, poor grammar, and a myriad of one-sentence paragraphs which didn't flow together at all. The entire article pushes the agenda of claiming that the party is a political threat, while providing virtually no evidence that the party is being taken seriously by any of the mainstream parties, and all the sources concern the media launch when the party was registered, as opposed to anything that's happened since.

The article also makes claims that are downright preposterous, such as claiming that it is likely to win the support of Dianne Hadden and Carolyn Hirsh. It also claims that they are likely to win a balance of power when the only person who appears to be seriously suggesting this is Russell Bate, and when only the party's supporters are predicting that they have much chance of even winning a seat. The current version, on the other hand, has had a rewrite for grammar and retains most of the information without the self-promotional hyperbole. Ambi 10:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply

I disagree with this assessment (of course). There may have been spelling mistakes in there. I will accept that. But what on earth was wrong with the grammar?

What is wrong with one sentance paragraphs? Some things only need one sentance to say, and grouping them with completely unlinked statements can only lead to confusion over their possible connections. I recall some grammar rule about one paragraph, one idea... (not that I care much for presecriptive grammar, but you seem to).

Many Wikipedia articles have these, placing them in a usually misnamed "trivia" section. That said, if you'd just rewritten the piece changing this part of the structure, I wouldn't have minded.

My writing this with the POV that they *might* have some success is just as much "pushing the agenda" as you "pushing the agenda" that they certainly won't have.

The opinions of the major parties is irrelevent - did any party think One Nation would out poll both the Nats and Libs in Queensland in 1998? Besides, even if they did think they were a threat, do you think they'd boost their chances by advertising the fact? Note that soon after the launch Bob Katter suggested created a similar, but federal, party. He obviously took notice.

The main support for their possible success is the roaring success of Russell Savage and Craig Ingram, and to a lesser extent, Susan Davies, Bob Katter and Tony Windsor. The Libs and Nats role in the Telstra sale is likely to also boost "conservative" candidates that aren't memebers of these parties.

The reason it doesn't cover much of what happens since is because I couldn't find much. Your replacement article doesn't add anything in this area, so I don't really understand the criticism.

I at no time said that it would gain the support of the two ex-Labor Independant MLCs. I did point out that many of the leaders of the Alliance had Labor connections, and that Hadden's current policies and positioning fit perfectly with the Alliance. You may also note, that the local press in parts of Hirsch's electorate was printing a lot of letters from Alliance supporters (and detracters). But perhaps because all this doesn't support your "agenda", you deleted it. Presenting other evidence supporting the contention that the ex-ALP MLCs will never join the Alliance would have been more in the Wikipedia NPOV spirit.

For this to be self-promotional, I would have to be a part of the party. I'm not - I probably won't even give them a high preference, in part because they're a pseudo-ALP front, which is perhaps why I was making that clear. (And which you've chosen to hide through deletion, perhaps as part of an "agenda" to promote them to conservative voters - the Alliance would love that. Oooh, this agenda accusing is fun. I'm glad I don't need much evidence.)

As for them issuing statements that they're similar to "SA First" and the "City Country Alliance", I can find no evidence for this. *I* compared them to these two parties, becuase, IMO, they have strong similarities. Especially to the Alliance in it's present state - they were single state embyrotic parties whose first election made-or-broke them. Broke in both cases, yet another sign that I'm not some one-eyed Alliance accolyte.

Your claim that they have "nowhere near the support" of these is also contraversial, in that the City Country Alliance had very limited popular support, and SA First had a similar number of members. If you count the lower house support of the affiliated Savage and Ingram (both were at the party's launch - stronger than "in principal support") as likely upper house votes in 2006, they've already got significant (though not a quota's worth of) electoral backing in the upper house at least.

IMO it is quite feasible that they will win at least one seat in the Victorian upper house in 2006. They've certainly got better odds than Family First had at the 2004 federal election.

matturn 14:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

You're missing the point. Your opinion isn't relevant. Mine isn't either, for that matter. They could well win a seat, but so far there's been no evidence to suggest it along with their own claims. There's been nothing from Laurie Oakes, Annabel Crabb, Antony Green, or Michelle Grattan, or any of the myriad of other political hacks in the press gallery even bothering to mention them, let alone viewing them as a political force, apart from in the stories referring to their launch. This is why the article is at is; it doesn't suggest that they definitely won't win a seat, but there's not much evidence of a groundswell of support for them at this time. If you provide some evidence that anyone outside the party is taking them seriously and I'll be happy to see it changed.

Along the same lines, I'm not suggesting that the article claim that Hadden or Hirsh have anything against the alliance - it's just preposterous (not to mention original research) to suggest that their joining is a likely alternative. Savage and Ingram are a world away from Hirsh and Hadden, both of whom are relatively urban MPs just disillusioned with the ALP, letters to the editor or not. This is why no one else - not even the party - is suggesting that there's any possibility of their joining. It's something that just doesn't warrant discussion in the article.

The comparison to SA First and the City-Country Alliance is again original research, as no one else is suggesting it that I can see, which would make it ineligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. The only real similarity between the parties anyway is that they're state-based - none of the three share an ideology and all had different backgrounds. Ambi 15:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

My opinion isn't relevent, but yours is? You believe that certain bits of information I gleaned from the internet and the press aren't original research, but others are? Not everything had a little (source) link, which they should have. If you read the info linked to instead of just deleting the links for a yet unstated reason, you would realise this.

You really should delete the whole article if you want to be consistant. You clearly have a POV (as have we all), but against Wikipedia practice you're forcing it on the whole article, and deleting anything that might support conflicting ones.

Again, I never suggested Hadden and Hirsh would join the party - I was just presenting evidence that supported that contention. A more NPOV way of dealing with your disagreement with a *possible interpretation* of that evidence would have been to add something like "others point out that both these women aren't independant or urban fringe/rural at all. Also, both supported the full sale of Telstra, and hate the commercial use of forests". As far as I know this statement is untrue, but it seems to broadly represent your opinion.

All the political writers in your list spend the vast bulk of their time looking at *federal* issues. Of course they're not going to be too bothered with a minor, single state party. Especially one that's only targeting around of quarter of Victorians. I don't think Laurie Oakes has ever mentioned Russell Savage, but that doesn't stop him winning his seat comfortably year after year.

You seem to respect Age writers, so why not respect the words of *state* politics reporter Mathew Murphy, and at least leave the links to his articles intact?

"If you provide some evidence that anyone outside the party is taking them seriously and I'll be happy to see it changed." All the press and broadcast attention around their launch was a fairly good sign I thought. The Stateline story in particular. Also the flurry of letters in the Yarra Valley, and perhaps the mention of a successfull meeting in Horsham. But given your deletion policy, all these stories must have been by non-people like me.

Of course, if Liberals for Forests are anything to go by, you can get a sizable vote without anyone knowing you exist beyond a ballot paper. They were just a few thousand votes away from having Fielding's seat.

As for the only connection between the minor parties mention being that they're state based, well that and their first election being a major test is all that's needed to justify the statement I made. (unsigned, made by Matturn

Actually, I don't have much of an opinion on the Alliance. I'm a fan of Savage and Ingram, but I'm wary of having an article on a new party that makes lots of bold claims with very little evidence apart from the statements of the party's leaders. I have read the articles; the problem is that they're all reporting on the launch, taking the line of "hmm. new party. bold claims. interesting", and that none of them have any neutral parties claiming that they're likely to even win a seat, let alone getting the balance of power. I'd be happy to see any evidence since then of this, and comments by state political reporters will do just nicely, but I've yet to see that either.

Again, with original research, you're missing the point. NPOV has nothing to do with this issue - the problem with Hadden and Hirsh is that you're the only one making the contention in the first place, and editing the article to imply some connection based on this; it is thus original research. And as for the state-based parties - the first election is bound to be a test for any new political party, so the only thing they have in common is being state-based; a link hardly strong enough to warrant mentioning here. Ambi 03:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

What contention? That mentioning them is relevent? They're indepedent, all the other independent members of the parliament are involved, and the party aims to be a collection of independents. Mentioning their connections to the Alliance or lack thereof is relevent. I could have done it better than the original statement, but that should lead to rewriting rather than deletion. If "the first election is bound to be a test for any new political party" is true, then surely mentioning at least some of the remotely substancial new political parties of the last decade is relevent. Their success or lack of it is valuable in predicting the fate of this party. matturn 07:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

There are four independents in the parliament, and two of them are involved with this party. The other two have absolutely nothing to do with it, and no one; no journalist, no member of the party, no anyone, apart from you, is suggesting any links between them. It is thus no original research; please read that policy. Finally, how is looking at the experience of the other parties valuable in predicting how this one will fare when it has nothing in common with any of the others? Ambi 07:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)