Talk:Liberal Democratic Party of Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Here's the link http://badanalysis.com/libertarian/ Noticed this is linked to on the front page of http://www.ldp.org.au/. Considering they refer to themselves as libertarians, and belive in the same thing as libertarians in the rest of the world, I'm assuming that libertarian means the same thing in Australia as the rest of the world Chuck F 16:50, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It means something completely different in Roppongi Hills, that's for sure. Reithy 04:45, Nov 5, 2004 (UTC)

For my part, as a born and bred Australian, I've never heard the term "libertarian" (and still less "anarchocapitalist" and its variations) used used to describe people's political preferences (be they laissez-faire or socialist) outside sites like this one [1]. I think the smart thing to do in this article would be to avoid it entirely and describe the policies directly, perhaps adding a sentence to the end comparing it to the US Libertarian party; there ought to be a less awkward way of summarising it than the present comparisons with tradional "left" and "right" parties but I'm stuck for ideas and time at the moment. J.K. [[]] 07:32, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Also Australian and I've heard it used a fair amount, but always in the context of civil liberties and never with any implication about economic policies. I have been out of Australia for eighteen months but I can't believe this has suddenly changed in my absence and it now means you have to believe in laissez-faire capitalism. It seems to me that User:Chuck F is creating unfactual articles as part of an edit war with other users over the United States Libertarian Party. --213.120.56.41 13:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just so we can get something right on all verisons: "Due to the federal legislative requirement for 500 members, it is considered unlikely the small Canberra based party will ever qualify." is not a valid phrase, it's pov, opinon and it needs to stay out of all verisons Chuck F 14:05, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am an Australian and a historian of Australian political history. Libertarian in the Australian context has meant libertarian socialism since the 1890s (see Takver). I have documents from 1970 onwards, publish by Libertarian Organisations in the sense libertarian socialist. These include a whole bunch of anti-war stuff, Red & Black Notes, LSO's publications from Brisbane. Libertarian also briefly meant the Sydney Push in the 1950s. Commo and labour student politicians from the 1950s knew that libertarian meant "Those socialist anarchist bastards from up in Sydney who slept around alot." You need to pull your head in Chuck and start using the phrase "libertarianism as practiced in the United States" to eliminate your national POV.Fifelfoo 07:01, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cheers, that makes sense. (I'm more into Central European history, which tends to throw up an entirely different kind of edit war... ;o) Like I said, I'm in favour of referring directly to the United States Libertarian Party in this article; "libertarianism as practiced in the United States" is IMAO bloody awkward, no offence, and in any case lib' soc's are by no means unheard of over there (see: Chomsky). More to the point, I'm getting the impression that most Australians have never heard the term unless we're talking about a civil libertarian activist lawyer. Beyond that, the article needs accurate 2004 election results for the ACT -- the ones in the current version came from me misreading the LDP web site, which still hasn't been updated to include them. J.K. [[]] 09:47, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Couldn't we solve the discussion by stating that the party is a classical liberal party, comparable with libertarianism in the United States? --Gangulf 14:10, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ah, yes, ten reverts in less than eight hours --- aren't we all so mature and willing to meet each other halfway? I could understand such, erm, passion here if we were talking about the Armenian Genocide or something but this is ridiculous. I'm going to request the article be protected again and put up a possible compromise version for people to comment on at Liberal Democratic Party of Australia/Draft. J.K. [[]] 07:52, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Draft is up; I've done my best to include everyone's criticisms and ideas, but have no illusions that everyone will be satisfied. Please comment here with complaints, suggestions, etc., before editing; if you think it's adequate as is, please say that too! Hopefully we'll have some kind of consensus within a couple of days... J.K. [[]] 08:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That version seems fine to me, though I do wonder at Australian political parties being defined in relation to American ones. Still seems a little Americentric to me. I have made some grammatical changes to the draft version. --213.120.56.41 13:24, 16 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Thanks for that. And we live in an Americentric world, for better or worse... As for the article, given an injunction has only slowed down our edit warriors, who in spite of their diligence in making sure the other's edits don't affect the main article have ignored the draft version over three days, I'm going to transfer the draft onto the article proper and see if they like it that way. Here's hoping. J.K. [[]] 09:58, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Contents 1 Draft for a RfC on the issue 2 Name of article 3 Similarity of name 4 Getting the facts straight

[edit] Draft for a RfC on the issue

You all are invited to visit and comment on a draft for a RfC on this and related articles that will eventually likely become a poll. Please remember we are not discussing the topic itself, just the suitable neutral number of issues we want to cover. --Improv 17:13, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Name of article

• Other Liberal Democratic Parties tend to put the country in parentheses. e.g. Liberal Democratic Party (Japan) or Liberal Democrats (UK). There are some that have "of country", e.g. Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, but they are in the minority. Should this article be renamed Liberal Democratic Party (Australia)? - Bambul 08:32, 8 June 2005 (UTC)

• Short answer: no. We're going by the party's official name here. J.K. 10:35, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

• Fair enough. Just to clarify: when a party is known just as "Liberal Democratic Party", that is when the country name is added in parentheses (e.g. Liberal Democratic Party (Japan)). But if the country is in the official name, as in this case, the official name of the party is used (e.g. Liberal Democratic Party of Russia). - Bambul 12:24, 9 June 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Similarity of name

"The LDP ran seven candidates and polled 1% of the vote, outnumbering and defeating most minor parties and independents due to the similarities of its name with that of the well-known Liberal Party of Australia"

Do we have a cite for this causal relationship? Bovlb 05:59:20, 2005-08-07 (UTC)

No kidding -- prove it or lose it. Yes, they're a groupuscule with funny ideas, but 1% sounds reasonable enough without name confusion, unless the Libs or the Dems weren't running at all in a seat. Heck, this is Canberra; the party's members could probably account for a good chunk of that percentage. J.K. 08:17, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Getting the facts straight

Somebody with a grudge has posted a number of lies. The required membership in the ACT is 100, not 10. In 2001 we had more than 7 members (or we couldn't have been registered). In 2004 we increased our vote from 1% to 1.3% (not decreased, as claimed).

On the subject of whether the LDP is libertarian, we consider ourselves moderate libertarians in the sense of the word used by the US Libertarian Party. (posted by John humphreys on 15 August 2005 — J.K.)