Talk:Liberal Movement

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is a current featured article candidate. A featured article should exemplify Wikipedia's very best work, and is therefore expected to meet several criteria. Please feel free to leave comments. When the FAC director promotes or archives the nomination, a bot will update the article talk page.

Apologies for the haphazard state of the article at the moment (if anyone's watching). I'm trying desperately to get my hands on Liberals in Limbo, and in lieu am being forced to use less useful sources. michael ^talk 09:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

That Advertiser article by Jaensch you added today. Is that online? I don't think it should exist in isolation. Presumably what Jaensch was talking about was the Olsen/Brown rivalry (If not, he should have). (Brown was in the LM for a while). Without mentioning that, the Jaensch quote doesn't make a lot of sense, it's like: Jaensch says there's a problem, but where's the evidence? p.s. I've got this theory that the only reason the Libs stayed with Kerin in 2002-2006 was so the Conservative wing could stop Brown becoming Premier. Rocksong 11:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've removed it for now, I'll trust your judgment (as you seem to be right all over the place, correcting oddities that us younger kids won't get). The Libs? Well, they're sick. And they'll keep losing. What no one realises is that they "won" in 2002, improving substantially on their 1997 performance, but they still lost where it counted: on the floor. I have no idea why one faction just doesn't bite the bloody bullet and stick behind either a dependable or a charismatic (or both) leader. But that's enough naive political thought from a nineteen-year-old on this night. michael ^talk 11:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Anyone happen to come across this book in their travels? 160 pages on the LM must contain some interesting information. Timeshift 18:42, 7 February 2007 (UT

I've read it (its at my University library - in Melbourne sadly for you guys) but it isn't as useful as you might think as it is published BEFORE the split (i.e when the LM was a faction of the LCL). Liberals in Limbo is a better overall resource. Teiresias84 22:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

It is payday and that book is a five-minute drive away - thanks TS! Regards Limbo, it is only available at the State Library (no borrowing), Flinders Uni Library and the Adelaide Uni Library. Since I'm a Unisa boy, it's going to be fun getting my hands on a copy. But some obscure collector or bookshop is sure to have it. michael ^talk 22:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I bought Awakening this morning and ordered Limbo in the noon, and will have it in my hands sometime next week. michael ^talk 04:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The ANU library has both of these, and I should have plenty of time on my hands over the next few weeks, so if you want a hand with this, I'd be happy to help. Rebecca 11:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Sure. :) We'll get this out of the way, and then hopefully the effort will then be concentrated on the 'Dems (or so is my plan). It's the right time and a good way to send off (regrettably) an important part of Australian political history. michael ^talk 11:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Oslen/Brown 2 "Formation" section 3 Suggestions 4 Intro 5 Advice

[edit] Oslen/Brown

First off, the article is really coming along and I enjoyed reading it. However while I agree with the substance of the Legacy statement; that the factionalism created in this era still troubles the party, it is worth noting that Oslen, like Brown, was in the LM when it was still a faction of the LCL (I remember reading it in Liberals in Limbo which I don't have access to right at the moment, but it should be easy to find in the index as Oslen isn't mentioned much in the book). In addition the liberal/conservative division in the party has outlived the (political) lives of Oslen and Brown so it probably should be changed to a broader statement. Teiresias84 12:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'll delete it now, and reinstate it in a better and more refined form in time. michael ^talk 12:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Well I did supply two refs which quoted respected SA political commentators. But what can I say... if Olsen was in the LM too, then those commentators are wrong (or at the least, guilty of oversimplifying). Come to think of it... are you sure? I thought Olsen didn't enter parliament until 1979. Rocksong 23:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Nothing to fret about. Much of this article will be harvested soon, and a better 'legacy' will be in place. (and I'm sure Olsen would have been an LM member, just not an elected one) michael ^talk 23:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Olsen was in the LM? News to me.. Timeshift 06:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I was suprised when I read it, too. Teiresias84 12:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Formation" section

This section begins: "Strong support emerged from within the party for Hall's stand, particularly from its youth wing, the Young Liberals. On March 28, a faction, but closer to a 'party within a party' was formed: the 'New Liberals'. On March 28 it was renamed the Liberal Movement".

Two problems with the dates: they are the same, and no year is given. According to the Steele Hall article, Hall stayed on as leader for 2 years after losing the 1970 election. So I'm guessing the year (and also the year for Hall's resignation in the previous section) is 1972. Rocksong 02:16, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Aha. The Bruce Eastick parliamentary profile has him opposition leader from 16 March 1972. I'd still like someone to check those other dates though. Rocksong 02:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

I was running through vague sources but I have another book on order and it will arrive shortly. It will contain exact dates. michael ^talk 04:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Yeah I realise it's a WIP (Work In Progress) but I thought I'd point it out. Thanks for the work you're putting into this. Rocksong 04:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestions

I was by Beneaththelandslide to provide some feedback for this article, and I have done so. I find this topic very interesting, I very nearly did my honours thesis on this, but in the end I didn't so I am not as much of an expert as I otherwise might have been.

The article basically covers everything, there are only a few things I feel that could be mentioned...

• Regarding the circumstances of which Hall came to be LCL leader; Playford arranged for Hall to replace him as LCL leader. Like Playford Hall was a rural MP and had hitherto not expressed moderate social policy positions. This was why Playford chose Hall (and the LCL conservatives supported him in the party room ballot).

Playford didn't arrange for Hall to replace him. In fact, Playford never told anyone who he voted for in the ballot following his resignation. As there was one member who did not cast a vote, Playford may not have even done so (this is speculation on the part on one of his biographers). I am 100% sure, no doubts whatsoever, that the idea that Playford nominated Hall as his successor is a fabrication, but I cannot recall who first made the claim.

• It says that the oringial Hall plan for electoral reform "received scorn from both the Labor opposition and the LCL's own councillors" - prehaps it should be made more clear that the LCL councillors opposed the plan because it went too far (it currently kind of sounds as if some LCL members wanted to go further).

Will fix, good point.

• The paragraph about the conservative LCL members is correct, but it could be mentioned this was aimed to protecting the unofficial leader of the faction, Ren DeGaris, whom his supports feared that Hall would sack. (I think this is mentioned in detail in A Liberal Awakening). In any case, DeGaris needs mentioning somewhere.

I wanted to avoid personalities, especially due to a tendency to paint one side as the "good guys" and the other as the "bad guys". I'll see about adding in something about DeGaris, but he is a saviour to some, and the devil to others, so I'm going to be careful.

• The final paragraph could be expanded to inculde a couple of sentences on the infighting that plauged the LPA after reunification - and ruined the parties chances at the 1977 election. (Henderson's Menzies Child has a bit of useful info from memory) It was after this Tonkin was able to heal many of the wounds before the Liberals suprize victory in 1979.

I wasn't aware of any serious infighting after the immediate reunification, but this does deserve merit and I will see about finding that books. I was under the impression they lost the 1977 election simply because they lacked gusto, enthusiasm and drive, while Labor (with Dunstan) kicked into full swing again.

I think that covers it for now, if I think of anything more, I will add it here. I would make the aforementioned changes myself but I don't have access to the revelant sources right now. (And I don't want to interfere with the beautiful prose!) Teiresias84 03:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I've added in some replies. Thanks for the help! :) michael ^talk 04:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Take a ganders @ South Australian general election, 1975... you're welcome to the pic of Millhouse to use on this page. Timeshift 14:08, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

That's been cut from the website of a school, hasn't it? Oh, I'd love a better photo. michael ^talk 01:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

So would I :-) Timeshift 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intro

The figures used in the introduction are not exact and I am well aware of this. They are not exact for the sake of easy reading (it is irritating to digest such long-winded figures when one just wants to get the 'gist' of the article), and not for any other motive (the LM is gone and dead, there is no reason to "beef them up"). The exact figures are available later on in the article. michael ^talk 01:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Advice

Can someone tell me if "rural conservatives" sounds too much like a pejorative term? michael ^talk 09:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps a more correct term is agrarian conservatism or agrarian socialism, depending on a persons POV. Timeshift 09:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

I think "rural conservatives" is far more preferable to either of these. There are connotations to those terms which that do not properly apply in this context. --cj | talk 11:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Like cj, I prefer "rural" as more accurate. Rocksong 11:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

On a similar topic, I've never liked the way that the article divides the LCL into 3 neat groups, "The old-money Adelaide 'establishment', farmers and regional workers, and an urban-based middle class". I think that is a very subjective division and I think the whole sentence should be prefaced by "according to Blewett and Jaensch" (but I'd rather this was done by whoever has that book in front of them). Rocksong 11:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it that the middle class is repeatedly identified as 'progressive' (without raising the fact that a large proportion of the middle would have been conservative, too) throughout the article? If that's the qualm, I'll fix it.

If it's that the three descriptors are so absolute, I will see about adding 'according to political scientists...". Their work has been cited many times (especially relating to the 'establishment', the more I read the more I doubt such a thing) and has been taken as near-gospel. michael ^talk 13:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Both! Though more the latter, that the three groupings were so absolute. They're also in the Liberal and Country League article, and maybe elsewhere. I realise that I'm engaging in WP:Original Research, in the sense that there's a cite for the 3 groupings and no cite for saying it wasn't... it's really just my intuition and experience telling me that people don't fit into neat groupings like that, but I'm fairly sure I'm right! Anyway (if others agree with me) then we can avoid the problem by saying "According to so-and-so there were 3 groups..." Rocksong 23:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)