Talk:Liberal Party of Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Flag
Portal
 Liberal Party of Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
Start This article has been rated as start-class on the quality scale.
Mid This article has been rated as mid-importance on the importance scale.
This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics.
Assessment comments
This article is part of WikiProject Political parties, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of political parties-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to "featured" and "good article" standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details. [View this template]
Portal
Start This article has been rated as start-Class on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.
Archive
Archives
1


Contents

[edit] Turnbull v Nelson

How many people were aware of this? Could be worth a mention. 6 votes swung Nelson's way apparently. Timeshift 16:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Liberals themselves using Adam Carr's images

[1][2] Is it noteable or non noteable to mention it in the article? Timeshift (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hard right

This was Christopher Pynes description of current Liberal policies. There is no valid reason to revert my contribution without consensus. Timeshift (talk) 05:40, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is not a blog or messageboard where you can play games of political "gotcha" while mining quotes from politicians, looking for damaging material. This is an encyclopaedia where we are supposed to maintain some form of POV. If you want to fight ideological battles, go do it somwhere else, otherwise stick to some sort of measured opinion. -- Mattinbgn\talk 05:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, and this is Pyne, a Lib MP's POV. Libs open up about party troubles, first and introductory sentence - THE Liberal Party is signing its own death warrant if it stays with its hard-right policies, opposition frontbencher Christopher Pyne says. If you wish to dispute it, why are you not prepared to have the gall for consensus discussion rather than simply continuing to revert? Which part exactly do you dispute? That they have MPs who describe them as far right? Well I've given a WP:RS. Why not specifically state which bit irks you so we can work on it, rather than blind reverts that serve to disrupt rather than build on consensus. Timeshift (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
As is quite clear from my comment above, I dispute its inclusion at all and see the entire exerise as another example of bringing political disputes to wikipedia articles. To use the views of one MP in one article to make an assertion of any standing is well outside any boundary of WP:UNDUE. As for blindly reverting, my previous run ins with you leave me little confidence that this discussion will lead anywhere, and I have little patience for tortured discussion on these types of issues. Hence this is my final contribution. Note: raised at WP:AWNB. -- Mattinbgn\talk 06:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
So the fact Pyne (and perhaps other small-l liberals) describe their party as hard right doesnt warrant any mention? We should be including all points of view on the party, not just the ones currently there. I would appreciate discussion instead of reverting. Also, what the hell is 'Australia is pretty leftist', especially from an admin? And minority views are excluded, majority views only? WP:WEIGHT? I'm surprised by the exclusion of this viewpoint of the party. Mattinbgn is showing no spirit of consensus, he is insisting on his way and his way alone, by thinking it is ok for wikipedia to contain some points of view but not other points of view within the Liberal Party. Timeshift (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
This article is an overview of the party and is not the place to air the occasional grumbling of party members, even important ones. Especially not on the day they first appear in the news. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
So does MP Christopher Pyne describing the Liberal Party as "hard right" not warrant a mention anywhere? Pyne and possibly other MPs speak for a section of the community, without a mention anywhere on Wikipedia I feel it is just another censure of minority views. Pyne is not the only small-l liberal, and he wasn't even one of the handful of rebel MPs during Howard's time in office. Senator Payne said to paraphrase, the Liberal Party was supposed to be a broad church but she and other leading moderates were shut out during the Howard years. Or does non of this warrant a mention anywhere? Timeshift (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The right vs broad church debate definitely belongs, absolutely. But that is different from picking up a single quote from Pyne. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
The quote should not be mentioned in the right vs broad church debate? Isn't that in itself POV? All points of view should be represented. Is it the actual format quoting you don't like? It can be reworded. Any MP calling their party hard-position in modern Australian politics, and arguably as some would mention, is definately noteable. Timeshift (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Hence the mention of Mark Latham's criticisms in the Australian Labor Party and Kevin Rudd articles. Not. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
sofixit! Hard right is quite significant however. Timeshift (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Did Pyne actually use that term though? The part in bold looks like a subeditors headline, and reading through the speech I see no mention of that term. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

I support the calls to keep WP:UNDUE in mind. Andjam (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Would anyone object adding some sort of mention on Christopher Pyne? Timeshift (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
A discussion of thing's he said in his article would, to me, be appropriate, so no objections to that, however I agree that it doesn't belong in this article. dihydrogen monoxide (H20) 09:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Agree that Pyne's opinion, if to be relevant anywhere at all, belongs in his article. Michael talk 09:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
If I may further elaborate, this is a case in point of why adding things straight to articles fresh from the presses is absolutely irrational. As far as I can see, Pyne did not use the term "hard right", it was a media invention, and he was merely making a case for the organisational reform of the Liberal Party. Read the article over. Pyne is not quoted as saying "hard right". Michael talk 11:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
Agreed for what it's worth that it doesn't belong here, it belongs at Christopher Pyne, if anywhere. Maybe Wikiquote, if it was an actual quotation, which it looks like it wasn't. Lankiveil (speak to me) 12:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC).

[edit] Liberal/National merger

I'm thinking an article on this would be useful, perhaps Liberal/National merger. Any ideas/suggestions/comments/objections? Timeshift (talk) 08:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

It's been proposed on and off over the years, and even though it may never happen it might serve a good purpose to have a history of the failed attempts/suggestions/proposals. Something like "Proposals for a merger of the Liberal and National parties (Australia)" might be a more suitable title. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
How about something like "Historical relationship of the Australian Liberal and National parties" that way it can be broader and cover not only the failed merger attempts but also the history of coalitions and three way split elections, etc. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 10:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
What WikiTonwsvillian mentions belongs under the existing Coalition (Australia) article. (An article which needs a lot of work, BTW). While merger talk is just talk, I think the potential merger belongs as a section of Coalition (Australia) rather than a new article. Also, without wishing to sound too negative, I think the names proposed by J and W are too long. Just my opinion. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)
I think an article on this topic is needed - perhaps "Liberal-National coalition relations" or some such. The attempts by the Liberals in various states to annihilate the then Country Party between the 50s and 70s (and the Country Party's fightback, often through the personae of Doug Anthony or Sir Joh) would definitely make for interesting reading in that. Orderinchaos 16:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Classical liberalism

Regarding the revert: "In Australia the major conservative party is called the Liberal Party of Australia, where "liberal" was chosen to refer back to the old Commonwealth Liberal Party and also to distinguish it from the "socialist" Labor Party. However, because of familiarity with contemporary US usage, the term "liberal" can take on a variety of meanings ranging from member or supporter of the Liberal party, to classical liberal, to "liberal" in the contemporary American sense (i.e. modern liberalism)." Well I suppose Wikipedia got it right on that one. Timeshift (talk) 03:27, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Why am I being abused by Michael? I added that the Liberal Party of Australia is the only party of the name Liberal to be any form of member of the International Democrat Union, rather than Liberal International? There is no opinion or editorialising, it is simply stating fact. Search for the term liberal on both pages. There is a reason all, and I mean all overseas news articles refer to John Howard's party as the "conservative party", to the "centre left labor/labour party", from one to another to another. Menzies got the name from Deakin, despite "Deakin’s political legacy is more ambiguous. The present-day Liberal Party, which bears the same name as the party he led, claimed him in various statements and an annual lecture; but since the 1980s it has distanced itself from his form of communitarian liberalism and state activity. He occupies a lesser place in the Liberal pantheon, which is dominated by Robert Menzies." Source: APH[3]. Believe what you wish, but this is a worldwide audience, Australian liberalism is unique. I would appreciate discussion rather than reversion. Timeshift (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't think anyone will seriously deny that the Australian Liberals are more conservative than liberal, but the way to do it is to quote WP:Reliable Sources to that effect, rather than engage in WP:Original Research into the memberships of International Democrat Union and Liberal International. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
That's the thing. I've simply stated that they are part of the IDU (correct) of which there are no other Liberal Parties (also correct), and stated the typical Liberal int'l affiliation. I haven't said that because of this then so on and so forth, there is no argument put forth. Timeshift (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I disagree. They are also the only Australian member of IDU. (And the Nationals aren't, strangely). They are probably also the only IDU member led by someone called "Brendan". Why are some facts significant but not others? That's what WP:RS are for. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
The Nationals historically arent anywhere near IDU ideology. A party says something about itself, the first name of the party leader does now. The Liberal Party of Australia is the only party of the name Liberal to be any form of member of the International Democrat Union, with many being conservative in the list. Overseas media reports the party as conservative per the RS links above. After stating that it is not listed in the many liberal parties in Liberal International (are there 20 Brendans in this list?), it then goes on to state that Menzies chose it in reference to the CLP. Timeshift (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
"Overseas media reports the party as conservative per the RS links above" -- agreed, and notable.
"The Liberal Party of Australia is the only party of the name Liberal to be any form of member of the International Democrat Union" -- Probably true, but not notable unless you can provide a RS showing it is notable. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It's probably true that the 2007 election saw the lowest informal vote in the Senate since federation (actually it is, and cited). But just because I didn't find it out from a news article, doesn't mean it needn't be mentioned. It fits in with the party being conservative per those RS links, and links in to the fact that Menzies named the party after the CLP. It comes down to this: "Robert Menzies called the Liberal Party the 'Liberal Party' because he did not want to call it the 'Conservative Party'. So it was a political play. It was a line. And it probably worked. It's true that Menzies ran on an anti-Labor, anti-socialist platform whilst copying Labor's political structures."[4] Timeshift (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you Peter for raising the point of notability. My "abuse" (note these " " things) was a simple way to state what Peter has said more politely and less concise: that you are adding this in order to contrast the party with others, and make it appear as something it is not (hence why when you first did it you had these little things " " which gave away your intentions). Regards, Michael talk 07:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Are you saying that the party is liberal rather than conservative in a global view? Your "appear as something it is not" and classical liberalism would make it seem so. It is clear that without commentating, the sentence states they are the only Liberal Party IDU participants unlike LI where Liberal Parties are grounded, and goes on to explain Menzies chose Liberal in reference to Deakin/CLP. We really need to remember that this is a global audience, and one Liberal Party in the IDU might be a bit unexpected to some, because let's face it, globally the party is not Liberal, it is conservative - per the WP:RS links that Peter agreed with above. Timeshift (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There is already a "philosophies" section, which goes over liberal / conservative / centre-right for the global audience. Michael talk 07:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
But not the affiliation. I note this (yes its a blog but its quoting a Policy article): Charles Richardson, former Kennett adviser, notes that "Australia’s own Liberal party is a member of the centre-right International Democrat Union rather than Liberal International". Why did a Liberal raise that point? Beats me. Unless they're the only Liberal Party in the IDU that is... Timeshift (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I find it interesting that is the only thing you can find it in. Revealing, to say the least. Michael talk 10:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Because journalists dont get involved in the irrelevance of international affiliations. But if we are going to have them, then the fact theres 1 in IDU and dozens in LI, where the name was derived from the CLP/Deakin. I still fail to see at what exact point you object - it seems to be a floating rationale. Timeshift (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)