Template talk:Australian politics/party colours/Labor
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Who decided to use red as Labor's colour? This constitutes a clear political comment that Labor is, or ought to be, a socialist party. Labor is not a socialist party, and has no official colour. If Australian political parties are to be colour-coded, then random colours should be used. Adam 15:06, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
- The Age and the Herald Sun have in the past used red for Labor, blue for the Libs and green for the Nats - so its common if strictly incorrect. PMA 05:10, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, unlike their British or American counterparts, no Australian political party has designated party colours. However, one cannot deny that red is the colour most commonly used to represent the ALP in the media and that it is, in fact, part of their logo. Although blue could equally be used, the party colours for Australian parties were based on those used by the ABC in election coverage (although someone has altered the Dems to match their new logo). If they are to be based on anything at all, I'd say the ABC is the best bet.--cj | talk 05:16, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
What the Age or the ABC do does not dictate what we should do. The fact that the colour red appears in the ALP logo is meaningless - so do blue and white, becuase they are the colours of the Australian flag which the logo is based on. The ALP does not have an official colour, and if it did it wouldn't be red. The use of red, the colour of socialism and communism, constitutes a political comment about the ALP (worse, an incorrect comment), and is thus POV. I take this matter seriously and will pursue it until this practice is changed. Adam 05:22, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- As I said, blue could equally be used - but, by tradition, it has not been. I'm not suggesting that any external body dictate what we do, but it would be consistent with Wikipedia practice to use the ABC as a source and certainly more sensible than picking "randomn colours". In the context of the ALP's logo representing the national flag, I don't think that the use of red inherently indicates socialism. And even if so, I don't see why that should be a so much of a problem.--cj | talk 06:23, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Of course red, when used as a designator for a political party, indicates socialism. You may disagree with me, CJ, but please don't treat me like an idiot. And of course it is a problem. As I have already said, it represents an opinion that the ALP is, or ought to be (no doubt the view at the ABC), a socialist party. Since this is untrue, this is an inherently POV thing to do, and thus contrary to Wikipedia policy.
An analogous situation arose when the US TV networks decided to use colours for states carried by the Democrats and Republicans. They deliberately used red for the Republicans and blue for the Democrats (hence red states and blue states) to avoid any suggestion that they were insinuating that the Democrats were "reds." Adam 06:45, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
- It is not our place to choose colours in order to defy common practices; red is universally (if informally) used to represent Labor. And the US Democrats are an entirely different kettle of fish. The ALP does have its ideological origins in socialism and continues to function as a labourist/social democratic party (if considerably repositioned towards the centre). Even if you dispute this, it wouldn't change the fact that the ALP is nominally so. It is not POV. The argument to the contrary is opinion.--cj | talk 07:33, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- Also ALP electoral posters are red (and Liberals blue). So the ALP themselves have no problem with red being "their" colour, so it seems. Rocksong 07:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
-
Labor's colour is red. Like its ideological equivalents, the British Labour Party, Liberal Party of Canada, the SPD in Germany and the Swedish Social Democratic Party. Together with this, the US Republicans (certainly not a socialist or communist organisation) are identified with red. And you're incorrect concerning red states and blue states:
- 'With the adoption of color television in the 1960s (and continuing with increased use of color in newspapers in the 1980s and 1990s) media outlets took advantage of this in their electoral maps on election night. But until the 2000 election, there was no consensus on color schemes between the networks (although an unstated rule has been suggested [1]). For example, from 1972 until at least 1992, NBC consistently showed Republican-won states in blue, and Democratic-won states in red. But other networks used other patterns. ABC, in at least two presidential elections during this time, used yellow for one major party and blue for the other. However, in 2000, for the first time ever, all the major broadcast networks and all the cable news outlets utilized the same color scheme: red for Republicans and blue for Democrats.'
The use of the colour red for Labor is common practice and it is used by every major media outlet. It does not impart any particular bias than does the use of blue for the Liberals. Adam, I think that if you honestly believe that if you think that simply the use of the colour red imparts an opinion that Labor 'is or ought to be' a socialist party than you've fought one too many factional battles against the Left. - Private Guy 10:51, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
Just a note: *Every* Social Democratic party in Europe uses red as its colour. Of course there are connections to Socialists and Communists -- surprise, surprise --, but that does not mean that red is uniquely the colour of one of them... —Nightstallion (?) Seen this already? 10:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Just to add my two cents worth, it would take quite a lot for me to swing my federal vote from Labor to Liberal, but I really do think it is splitting hairs worrying about the colours. Random colours would look plain silly, there needs to be some consistency, and seeing as all other media sources have Liberal as Blue and Labor as Red... what's the issue? Swing voters aren't exactly going to say "well Labor's colour is red so therefore i'm not voting for them"... at the end of the day, it comes down to how much of a lie the government of the day can get away with, and how strong the opposition is. Nothing more. Timeshift 12:31, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
