Talk:Liberal Party of Australia/Archive 3
 | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
| Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 |
Liberal & National Party Totals
Hi. Why is such an inadequate representation being used? The coalition agreement consists of the Liberal Party and the National Party. The Country Liberal Party and the Liberal National Party have no Coalition agreement with either party. Individual members choose (or are designated by state branches) to sit within certain party rooms and enjoy the rights of all other members. The impression of the Wikipedia articles under-represent the numbers and influence of both parties in the parliament. For example the numbers would imply that only 81 members could have voted in the last Liberal leadership ballot rather than the actual number of 102.. the number of Liberal MPs and Senators. The CLP in the Northern Territory is legally a division of the National Party, and the LNP (on the insistence of John Howard at its formation) is the legal Queensland division of the Liberal Party. They are the same party and as such have representation in the Federal Liberal Executive and in the Party Room. Given all of this it seems far more appropriate to cite the actual party room representation of the parties in the parliament as they define it and as the Parliament, which for example recognises Warren Truss as leader - and the benefits that gives, including how they are called by the Speaker in Opposition, and the Parliamentary website also refers to it so. Furthermore both party websites include the members of the LNP & CLP in their MPs. If it is possible that the leader of the Liberal or National Party not be a member as so defined by the current standard then it is clearly ridiculous. Furthermore why is this bizarre rule not similarly applied to the Labor Party and Country Labor? They are both different names used to elect members, including on ballots, which differentiate purely on location and branding, not the rights of MPs or their party as referenced by the Parliament.
I understand that the supposed justification is how the results are displayed on the election pages, however I don't see why that requires the current arrangement, after all after being elected they choose to sit in a particular party room. Similarly if an independent is elected as an independent and then chooses to sit and is given representation (and voting rights) within the ALP caucus their representation would increase.
Furthermore if this is the criteria to be used why is it not used in reference to the historical party "Liberal and Country League" in South Australia, which like the LNP was created by a merger of the state Liberal & National Party party equivalents, with MPs being able to sit with the party of their choice in Canberra. Such members include Archie Cameron the former leader of the Country/National Party, and member for Barker who was elected as LCL MP and sat with the Country Party, and then after losing the leadership sat with the United Australia Party. Archie Cameron and other Country Party MPs who were members of the state based LCL are correctly counted in the historical tallies of the Country Party MPs. This should continue with the LNP members been recognised as members of the federal party room with which they sit, cast internal ballots, are whipped and referred to by parliamentary rules and the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt1772 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
There are Lib, Nat, LNP and CLP candidates that contest elections on behalf of the coalition. What does the Lib/Nat Coalition agreement have to do with how they are voted for? There's 58 Lib, 22 LNP, 9 National and 1 CLP. You then go on to say the CLP and LNP don't have a coalition agreement as if they are somehow not part of the coalition. Try to be consistent at least. It has however been long-standing consensus for the past two federal elections, a good square 5 years. If this were so wrong, don't you think it would have been targeted more by now? That's the great thing about wikipedia, if something ISN'T correct, people will come along and create hell until it IS correct. If this wasn't correct it wouldn't have gone on for the past 5 years/2 elections. Thousands of editors and hundreds of thousands of readers can't be wrong for 5 years on wikipedia. Not to mention, Lib+Nat+LNP+CLP is used here, at Australian House of Representatives and Australian Senate, and at ALL election articles where more than Lib+Nat exist. Such pervasive wrongness would not last if it were such. Timeshift (talk) 05:54, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
They are part of the coalition via their membership of the either the Liberal or National party and their status as members of their caucus and parliamentary party rooms. That's my point. What is the justification for the consensus? There doesn't appear to be one. The current consensus is at odds with how the parties and the parliament refers to the representatives and the senators. It is also as stated above, inconsistent with how earlier parties such as the LCL have been treated Matt1772 (talk) 06:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Click edit and look at the infobox tally. "coalition total divided amongst the four coalition party articles as discussed on 2010 fed election talk page." is commented in. This would indicate that this was discussed on the 2010 fed election talk page. Yes, that long ago. We've been here and at least speaking for me I don't care to revisit it again with just one concern raised, five years later. I'm not going to go around in circles on this. I've told and shown you the relevancies. I'm done now, thanks. Timeshift (talk) 06:11, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- Your points are irrelevant, and even if they were relevant they would be best dealt with by a note. Not giving a false impression of under representation. I think following a leadership election is an apt and propert time to review the page and how certain decisions have been reached. The current page makes it look like 81, not 102 members had a ballot as caucus members when this is clearly wrong.
The Government/Parliament website clearly details the member of the Queensland Coalition Representatives as Members of the Liberal or National Party not the Liberal National Party, which has no distinct federal representation. http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Parliamentarian_Search_Results?q=&sta=QLD&mem=1&sen=1&par=-1&gen=0&ps=12 Matt1772 (talk) 06:20, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- There are noterefs at places like Australian House of Representatives. There's no noterefs in the party infoboxes as the ref number doesn't attach to the side, it puts it in a new line alltogether. By all means, attempting to change existing consensus is always an option, but you will have to convince many people who probably still aren't over the 2010 election discussion. Based on that, I don't expect a lot of replies to this. Remember that if this is the case, you will need to learn to live with the curent consensus. The worst thing to do is to start down a unilateral edit war against the existing consensus. But maybe i'm wrong, time will tell. Timeshift (talk) 06:31, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- God, Coalition, just merge already and save us all this headache.
- But seriously. First of all, the CLP needs to come out of this discussion. They are absolutely not a division of the National Party (Natasha Griggs sits with the Libs!); they are an independent entity affiliated with both the Libs and the Nats. Parliament, for example, lists CLP members as CLP, not as Libs or Nats. I have encountered the belief that the CLP is a division of the Nats before and would love to know where it comes from, since I have been able to discover no evidence (even incorrect evidence) pointing towards it.
- The LNP is admittedly a different matter. As you say they are legally a division of the Liberal Party, but I'm sure you agree it would be absurd to include them all under that heading. The Parliament does include them as Liberals and Nationals - but how do we do that? There is the option of trying to fiddle with the electoral results to split LNP results under Liberal or National, but no source does this so it is far too close to original research. The Parliament has different priorities than we do - we have to have a consistent approach across our articles. LNP MPs are frequently referred to as such in the media and elsewhere, and if they refer to a party at all on their personal material it tends to be the LNP. I do agree that we could make it clearer that LNP and CLP members caucus with the Liberal and National parties, and that the Liberal and National total party room numbers are important. I am open to hearing ideas on how to do this. I do, however, think that any suggestions about "under-representing" parties are silly, since everyone is included in the boxes and there is a coalition total.
- The LCL thing is actually a good point, and indicates a deficit in our coverage of earlier elections where most of our pages were written before our pages on state politics were at even the early stages they're at now. At some stage presumably someone will get around to an overhaul there. Frickeg (talk) 11:30, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
- I don't know I can't remember what the source is either I just remember coming across it once and found it interesting, so sorry I can't help you out there. Though I do agree that the CLP is somewhat different from the LNP and due to its size it is far less consequential, and that unlike the LNP the parliament recognises them as distinct in some circumstances. You could change the electoral results quite simply, in fact I think I've previously worked that out on a personal excel document but I don't think it's as necessary [although it does give the wrong impression that the Liberal Party had a lower Primary vote than the ALP in 2013 - but what the ALP vote have been if their QLD vote wasn't counted... I've had arguments with idiots on the internet before over this but it's not as an important issue and there is a clearer case to be made for the current decision]. However I don't think there is such a case to be made for the Party Totals on the respective Liberal and National pages. If you want there to be a clear link between the 2010 & 2013 election result pages and the party room numbers, I suggest putting a note beside the LNP vote on the election pages which says 16 LNP members sit as federal liberals and 6 as federal nationals. Similarly to what is done on the House of Representatives page and Senate page. This is a simple change, no recalculation required and would allow for a far more representative party totals on the respective party pages. Atm the Federal Leader of the Nationals doesn't count as a Nationals MP which is plainly bizarre. Members of the LNP are also referred to frequently as members of the Liberal or National party in the media, Warren Truss being the most obvious, but every other member is as well including Warren Entsch, George Christensen and other higher profile Queensland MPs. As for personal websites many LNP members do identify their National or Liberal party representation, and even if it didn't it's hardly relevant. Every state branch/division has slightly different branding and generic websites, there is also Country Labor branding, and many MPs don't even brand their websites at all with Party branding, a perfect example being Malcolm Turnbull (both before and after becoming leader).
- In addition, in regards to consistency between pages the 2013 election page correctly begins with "The centre-right Liberal/National Coalition opposition led by then-Opposition leader Tony Abbott of the Liberal Party of Australia and Coalition partner the National Party of Australia, led by Warren Truss," Not the Liberal, LNP, National, CLP Coalition. Because on the numbers the Nationals are third in both votes and representation, and a majority is totally possible without them - between the Liberal Party and the "LNP" Members there is a majority of 80, but that is not what the Coalition is and never has been, and was not intended to be by the merger. They were expected to, and do maintain distinct Liberal / National identities at the federal level in the parliament and party caucuses. And after all this is what the party page is there to reflect the size of the party in the parliament, and that size is their caucus - it is who can vote for leaders, who they are whipped by, which national conferences they attend etc etc.
123.3.225.252 (talk) 16:48, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
Separate articles for state parties
Should we have separate articles for the party in each state? I'm sure a lot could be written about the activities of the party at the state level which is not included in this article. AtHomeIn神戸 (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- Yes; this has been discussed a few times and we definitely should, it's just that no one's got around to writing them yet. Frickeg (talk) 02:36, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
- We agreed on the naming format of (for example) Liberal Party of Australia (New South Wales Division), but as Frickeg says, no one has gotten around to writing them yet. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:40, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
Liberal party slush funds & illegal activity's. - Please add to main page.
I notice that the Liberal party slush funds & kickback accounts have all been left of the main page. I think they should surely be added to the article.
Could somebody please add the following Liberal party crimes & illegal activity's - ( As prosecuted by the Courts/ICAC/IBAC/& the Australian electoral office. )
Could you also add the following links to the Reference section as-well.
Cheers.
For example ....
The alleged corrupt free enterprise foundation.
The alleged Corrupt & Very Illegal 8 by 5 foundation
The alleged Corrupt & Very Illegal foundation 51
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-02-10/adam-giles-foundation-51-police-conspiracy-apology/6080960
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-25/nt-magistrate-peter-maley-resigns/5695694
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-08/call-for-magistrate-inquiry-rejected-again/5657258
http://www.abc.net.au/local/stories/2014/06/24/4032112.htm
The alleged Corrupt & Very Illegal North Sydney forum.
The List goes on ... So forth' so on' ect ect.
If it's changed for this page do the same for the ALP. Manifest Truth (talk) 12:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
Adding "right" to description
Why it doesn't say the Liberal Party belongs to the Right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.239.137 (talk) 06:54, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Liberal Party of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120430184401/http://www.curriculum.edu.au/cce/default.asp?id=15275 to http://www.curriculum.edu.au/cce/default.asp?id=15275
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:54, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Seeking consensus - ideology
The ideological description in the right hand column is clearly not suitable.
Liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism are european terms that do not describe the Liberal party, have never been acknowledged by party documents, and seem to have been chosen solely on the basis of the party's name. Whatsmore it is not consistent with other similar articles like the US republicans or democrats which use "American conservatism" and "American liberalism".
It seems bizarre that we are not using the already very long article about the ideology of the liberal party specifically, Australian Liberalism - this would also be more consistent with the usage discussed above by the GOP, dems, etc. Also Australian conservatism should be used as it refers to conservatism as it is in Australia - very different to conservatism in European countries, for example. It strikes me as very odd that such vague unfitting terms should be used when we have these two terms which are consistent, have their own articles, largely or completely discuss these ideologies in relation to the Liberal Party, and refer to these ideologies of the centre right in Australia (for which the liberal party is the main vehicle) rather than overseas.
I am hereby seeking speedy consensus to rectify this and use the obvious, precise, and consistent terminology Australian Liberalism and Australian conservatism in the right hand sidebar/table. For the reasons mentioned above as well as their complete out-of-nowhere arbitraryness, the current descriptors should not stay for very long as they are inadequate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
- I'm happy with everything you've added in the article except for the minor bits i've changed. But I still think con lib/lib con is best, but others can have their say too. One thing that I don't like about this article is the level of detail about all their government. It shouldn't be so expansive. There's PM and PM government articles for that. The ALP article is far more concise. And is far more detailed on the structure of their party than this article is. Timeshift (talk) 05:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
Thanks. I'm sorry if my irritation was a bit excessive before. I reacted in an annoyed way because it had taken me a while to write the stuff that was reverted wholesale rather than specifically. Thank you for not doing that again. Indeed, if you believe those are the best descriptors that is a perfectly legitimate point of view also, and we'll have to wait for some more people to see which way they think is most fitting. Thanks for that. Saruman-the-white (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree, the ideology information is wrong. timeshift9, you need to provide some citation to backup your "liberal conservatism" and "conservative liberalism" claims here. You have a history of disagreeing here and you also go against what Howard has said. Please provide a verifiable good quality reference if you want to maintain your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.255.209 (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
- That's not how it works. Your changes are disputed, therefore the status quo must remain until you gain consensus. Timeshift (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
This is quite a challenging problem. It would be nice if the party would tell us, but it doesn't. I've thoroughly checked its website and constitution. All I've found is a lot of use of the word Liberal, and some use of liberal, but no attempt is made to define either. Conservative is thrown around in a similar way. I guess that means we use secondary sources, but which ones? HiLo48 (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
Yeah... it is vague. The ALP and Greens have stronger ideologies because of different origins. The ALP is obviously socialist and the Greens follows "green politics". Menzies founded the UAP and "Liberal" Party in opposition to the ALP. He did not found them on ideological grounds. Roughly speaking, you could say the modern Liberal Party followed the Protectionists and Free Traders' fusion, but that is hardly relevant to its ideology nowadays either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.147.44 (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
I have an interest in political science and would refer to the Conservative Party (UK) article. The ideology of the party is described as 'conservatism' and 'economic liberalism'. The Conservatives are a much more progressive than the Liberal Party of Australia. The party officially supports gay marriage and action on climate change (including the European Union carbon price). In the United Kingdom general election, 2010 the party addressed several 'green issues'. From the Party wiki article with a source:'These included proposals designed to impose a tax on workplace car parking spaces, a halt to airport growth, a tax on gas-guzzling 4x4s and restrictions on car advertising'. I think a good way to describe the Libs' ideology would be: 'Social conservatism', 'Australian conservatism' and 'Economic liberalism' (although the party has become increasingly protectionist. As for political postion, I would probably lean towards 'Centre-right' (like UK Conservatives) or 'Right-wing' Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- WP:SOCKPUPPET. Timeshift (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- ??? What Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just an IP getting an account, which he's entirely entitled to do. Frickeg (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- I am not a sock puppet of anyone. Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- This account suddenly tag teams this account, and where the former's activity starts, the latter's activity stops. I've been around the wikipedia block too many times to be fooled. Timeshift (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please ignore timeshifts comments and read my comments re ideology. Timeshift is sadly unwell and has it in for me. Welshboyau11 (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't. If you haven't noticed, sadly the article has had to be locked. I am for fundamental changes like that being done through talkpage discussion. Timeshift (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I take your point, which is why I made my comments above. As soon as I wrote them you simply wrote the word 'sockpuppet' without evidence to 'discredit' me. Welshboyau11 (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- The last edit of the first IP was this. The first edit of the second IP is this. The first IP's contribution log stopped there, and the second IP began from there. The second IP picks up from where the first IP left off. To me it quacks like a duck. Timeshift (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why won't you call a Wikipedia sockpuppet investigation then? Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Welshboyau11, since I am not allowed to comment on your talk page despite the fact you say 'you can leave me a message for any reason at all'. Welshboyau11 (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Two-IP meatpuppetry struggles in an SPI. I hope no unilateral ideology article changes occur when the lock on the article is lifted. Timeshift (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I'm right. A simple internet search for IP 131.217.255.209: http://www.ipf1.com/info/131.217.255.209.html reveals the location as Hobart, Tasmania and the internet provider as University of Tasmania, whilst 144.136.97.19 is given as Sydney, New South Wales and internet provider Telstra. You owe me an apology. I am going to report you. Welshboyau11 (talk) 03:22, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Two-IP meatpuppetry struggles in an SPI. I hope no unilateral ideology article changes occur when the lock on the article is lifted. Timeshift (talk) 03:16, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Why won't you call a Wikipedia sockpuppet investigation then? Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Welshboyau11, since I am not allowed to comment on your talk page despite the fact you say 'you can leave me a message for any reason at all'. Welshboyau11 (talk) 03:11, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- The last edit of the first IP was this. The first edit of the second IP is this. The first IP's contribution log stopped there, and the second IP began from there. The second IP picks up from where the first IP left off. To me it quacks like a duck. Timeshift (talk) 03:04, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I take your point, which is why I made my comments above. As soon as I wrote them you simply wrote the word 'sockpuppet' without evidence to 'discredit' me. Welshboyau11 (talk) 02:55, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I don't. If you haven't noticed, sadly the article has had to be locked. I am for fundamental changes like that being done through talkpage discussion. Timeshift (talk) 02:47, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Please ignore timeshifts comments and read my comments re ideology. Timeshift is sadly unwell and has it in for me. Welshboyau11 (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- This account suddenly tag teams this account, and where the former's activity starts, the latter's activity stops. I've been around the wikipedia block too many times to be fooled. Timeshift (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- I am not a sock puppet of anyone. Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- Just an IP getting an account, which he's entirely entitled to do. Frickeg (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
- ??? What Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
What fun. Anyhow, the Liberal Party speaks of "liberalism" (in the Aust. sense) and "conservatism", but never "liberal conservatism" or "conservative liberalism". These strike me as terms that would better apply to very weakly right-wing European parties that we in Australia would probably see as centre-left if anything. The US Republican Party article links "American conservaism" and "American liberalism". We already have articles on wiki for each Australian conservatism and Australian liberalism (both of which will differ somewhat from overseas counterparts, especially Australian liberalism), so I think under ideology we should simply list these two. This seems the most obvious thing to do given the existence of those two articles and the fact that the Libs frequently mention both conservatism and liberalism but never the ones we have listed currently. It also works because it has been commented on many times that the liberal party has a 'liberal' wing (in the Australian, small govt, classical liberal sense - ie Turnbull) and a conservative wing (ie Abbott). Saruman-the-white (talk) 05:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- Thanks Timeshift, let's just forget that now. I am certainly not a sock or meat puppet As I said I have an interest in politics and a political science degree and would refer to the Conservative Party (UK) article. The ideology of the party is described as 'conservatism' and 'economic liberalism'. The Conservatives are a much more progressive party than the Liberal Party of Australia. The party officially supports gay marriage and action on climate change (including the European Union carbon price). In the United Kingdom general election, 2010 the party addressed several 'green issues'. From the Party wiki article with a source:'These included proposals designed to impose a tax on workplace car parking spaces, a halt to airport growth, a tax on gas-guzzling 4x4s and restrictions on car advertising'. I think a good way to describe the Libs' ideology would be: 'Social conservatism', 'Australian conservatism' and 'Economic liberalism' (although the party has become increasingly protectionist.
As for political postion, I would probably lean towards 'Centre-right' (like UK Conservatives - left-wing by Australian standards) or 'Right-wing'. Anyway, worth discussing. Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:17, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
I would disagree with 'right-wing' as 'big tent' major parties by definition tend towards the centre, as they need to collect a large proportion of the vote. By definition, the UK Conservatives, Aust Liberals, US Republicans, NZ Nationals and Canadian Conservatives are all centre-right within their respective nations - although yes, as a European nation the UK's centre is noticeably to the left of our centre. 'Right wing' or 'left wing' refer to smaller more fringe parties like the Greens or One Nation. Centre-right is certainly the right designation, however I agree that 'conservatism' and 'economic liberalism' would be better than what we have now. However, I think Australian Conservatism would be more fitting than just plain 'conservatism' or 'social conservatism' as Australian conservatism has always contained significant elements of social conservatism within itself (which will differ somewhat from social conservatism in other nations) but has also included significant currents of fiscal conservatism, traditionalist conservatism, cultural conservatism, among others. As for economic liberalism, Australian liberalism is more fitting because Australian liberalism is, by and large, what you are calling economic liberalism. Economic liberalism = limited government, aversion to rasing taxes, minimal business regulations (in other words, classical liberalism). This is basically the same as Australian liberalism - a form of classical liberalism. Using the term economic liberalism would be problematic, however, as in many countries today including the US and UK, economic liberalism is understood to mean (social) economic liberalism - ie the liberalism of the US Democrats or UK LibDems - higher taxes, more regulations, more redistribution and state services, etc - something which borders on what we would call social-democratic. Saruman-the-white (talk) 08:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- I pretty much agree with that. Let's settle on Australian liberalism and Australian conservatism (though I wonder if for perspective social conservatism should also be added??) Other than that, I agree. Welshboyau11 (talk) 09:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
The UK article lists UK conservatism and the GOP article lists American conservatism. Underneath, they indent and include lists including 'classical liberalism', 'fiscal conservatism', 'social conservatism' (the main strands or idelogical currents/factions within the respective parties), which solves this problem. I suggest you take a quick look at the Republican Party page. (the NZ nats do this too). If we followed this general trend, it would look something like this.
This would be my suggestion. That way we get both worlds. Saruman-the-white (talk) 10:51, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
- The NZ Nationals' page list their ideology as classical liberal, neoliberal and conservative. The party is socially conservative. You could probably write what you have done above better as:
- Australian Conservatism
- -Social Conservatism
- -Fiscal Conservatism
- Australian Liberalism
- -Classical Liberalism
- -Neoliberalism
- Neoliberalism - so-called "New Right" - belongs in their too. Look at analyses of comparing Reagan and Howard and Reagan and Abbott.
- 131.217.255.209 (talk) 08:52, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
The literature just suggests the Liberal Party of Australia is right-wing and populist. It more economically liberal than the Republican Party in the United States and has populist anti-Labor origins. The literature shows Menzies did not consistently support capitalism even.
Reviewing the literature, Laver and Benoit (2005: 205) found the Liberal Party of Australia scored higher on empirical indexes of market deregulation than America’s Republican Party and Democratic Party, than Japan’s New Conservative Party and than the United Kingdom’s Labour Party and Liberal Democratic Party. Only the United Kingdom’s Conservative Party scored higher on market deregulation than the Liberal Party of Australia (Laver & Benoit: 2005: 205). The Australian Labor Party scored lower on market deregulation than all the parties mention insofar in this paragraph (2005: 205).
Laver and Benoit’s (2005: 205) study though found the Liberal Party of Australia’s social policy is less conservative than America’s Republican Party, the United Kingdom’s Conservative Party and Liberal Democratic Party, Japan’s New Conservative Party, Australia’s National Party and One Nation party. The study (Laver & Benoit 2005: 205) showed Liberal Party of Australia’s social policy to be less progressive than Japan’s Kōmeitō, than the United Kingdom’s Labour Party and than America’s Democratic Party. Of all 47 parties, the Liberal Party of Australia was in the top five percentile for both the conservativeness of its social policy and its market deregulation.
Analysing Blair’s Labour prime ministership in the United Kingdom and Howard’s Liberal prime ministership in Australia, Bennister (2008: 334) describes both parties as populist and as having weak ideologies. Bennister (2008: 345) writes, “Blair and Howard both headed parties that are be considered ‘catch all’ parties, whereby ideology is dampened to broaden appeal. Furthermore, both the British Labour party and Australian Liberal party are pragmatic parties, interested in adopting policies that will bring them to power and maintain them in power. ... The appeal, based on a continuous and coordinated market research strategy and projection of image of the party leader in the media, saw the British Labour party evolve under”. Halpin (2004: 475) further writes, “Firstly, there was a general feeling, amongst both graziers and farmers, that “[...] the united Liberal Parties, which they had at first welcomed as a means of defeating the Labor Party, had closed them out from important areas of influence”. Labor emerged as an extension of the union movement whilst the Liberals had increasingly become an agent for urban business interests.”
As Bennett (2008: 24) describes, there is a “distinction commonly drawn between a ‘small-l liberal’ and a ‘capital-L liberal [i.e. classical liberal]’. The former is...a person with progressive views; the latter is a supporter of the politically conservative policies of the Liberal Party of Australia”. This contradicts suggesting the Liberal Party of Australia is conservative liberal or liberal conservative. Liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism are also not suitable descriptions. Lawler (2004: 60) describes liberal conservatism as stating “human liberty depends on the primacy of our devotion to society or [the] government”. Laver and Benoit’s (2005: 205) finding the Liberal Party of Australia’s level of market deregulation exceeds that of America’s Republican Party contradicts suggesting Liberal Party advocates centralising people’s dedications. Drolet (2010: 89-118) further argues conservative liberalism and liberal conservatism are not ideologies-in-themselves, but populist labels intended for broad appeal. Hence, reviewing the literature shows the Liberal Party of Australia is neither conservative liberal or liberal conservative and that literature commonly describes it as ideologically capital-L (i.e. classical) liberal. Howard also described the Liberal Party of Australia as classically liberal (see video ‘Inaugural John Howard Lecture - 01/06/09’, from http://www.mrcltd.org.au/resource-library/index.html [accessed 25th Aug. 2012]).
Menzies also did not consistently tout classical liberalism. Menzies (cited in Kingston 2004: 2) said, “[i]n envisaging the future world after the war, we should not seek to destroy this driving progressive element which really represents one of the deep-seated instincts of man, but should seek to control and direct it in the interests of the people as a whole... We shall do much better if we keep the good elements of the capitalist system, while at the same time imposing upon capital the most stringent obligations to discharge its social and industrial duty. The old conservative doctrine that the function of the State was merely to keep the ring for the combatants has gone forever”. This supports posing that the party’s ideology is right-wing populism.
Hence, as said, the literature shows the Liberal Party of Australia is neither conservative liberal or liberal conservative. Howard and others speak of it being classical liberal. This is consistent with Laver and Benoit (2005: 205) findings that the Liberal Party of Australia’s policies conduct more market regulation than the United States’ Republican party does. Broad other literature though shows the party has populist rights origins and policies (i.e. see Bennister 2008; Drolet 2010; Halpin 2004; & Kingston 2004).
Finally, my suspicion is Howard’s prime ministership before the global financial was classically liberal in nature before of the popularity of neoliberal policies at the time (such Thatcher’s and Reagan’s). Considering Howard and Frasier’s dispute (i.e see http://theconversation.edu.au/malcolm-fraser-does-it-matter-who-owns-our-papers-yes-it-does-7738) supports this conclusion.
References
Bennett, David (2008). ‘What Capital-C’. The University of Queensland Law Journal 27(1): 23-28. Accessed, 25th Aug. 2012, from http://media.proquest.com
Bennister, Mark (2008). ‘Blair and Howard: Predominant Prime Ministers Compared’. Parliamentary Affairs. 61(2): 334–355. Accessed, 25th Aug. 2012, from: http://pa.oxfordjournals.org
Drolet, Jean-Francois (2010). ‘A liberalism betrayed? American neoconservatism and the theory of international relations’. Journal of Political Ideologies 15(2): 89–118. Accessed from, 25th Aug. 2012, from http://www.tandfonline.com
Halpin, Darren (2004). ‘Transitions between Formations and Organisations: An Historical Perspective on the Political Representation of Australian Farmers’. Australian Journal of Politics and History 50(4): 469-490. Accessed, 25th Aug. 2012, from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com
Kingston, Margo (2004). ‘Not Happy, John!’. The Sydney Papers 16(4): 1-9. Access, 25th Aug. 2012, from http://search.informit.com.au
Laver, Michael, and Kenneth Benoit (2005). ‘Estimating Party Policy Positions: Japan in Comparative Context’. Japanese Journal of Political Science 6(2): 187-209. Accessed, 25th Aug. 2012, from: http://journals.cambridge.org
Lawler, Peter (2003). ‘Liberal Conservatism, Not Conservative Liberalism’. Intercollegiate Review 39(1): 58-62. Accessed, 25th Aug. 2012, from http://media.proquest.com Ue827 (talk) 11:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
+1 [User:Saruman-the-white|Saruman-the-white]] (talk)'s suggestion. Including right-wing in there too could help though, given the literature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ue827 (talk • contribs) 11:49, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
We seem to certainly be in the majority, with only one person advocating 'liberal conservatism/conservative liberalism' (not to mention better backed up, with the terms 'liberal conservatism' and 'conservative liberalism' never being applied to the party by the party itself or external observers). I would thank Spike Wilbury to remove the protected status so that this can be rectified. Also, thanks to Ue827 for his extensive research. Most helpful indeed. Saruman-the-white (talk) 09:10, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- In my mind it's hard to describe the Liberal Party without mentioning anti-unionism. That's a very consistent part of the behaviour of every Liberal government I've seen, federal and state. HiLo48 (talk) 09:18, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Ha! What majority are you referring to exactly? And i'm advocating the status quo that has lasted for years, rather than the euphemisms attempted to be added to this article so far. Timeshift (talk) 09:26, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Oh come on man, I see you all around Wikipedia. All you do is stifle changes to suit your own ideology. You've contributed ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to this discussion other than "STATUS QUO HURR HURR" (even saying why the SQ is more accurate would have been helpful - infact, it would dispel any criticism any one could make of you) and accusations of sock puppetry (p.s., if there WAS a sock puppet, WHO CARES? It changes nothing - it was just a weak way of attempting to discredit opposing viewpoints). I don't have a bone in this, and don't know how I think this would be labelled, but you are so obscenely obstructionist to change on Australian political articles, and have been so for YEARS. This is ridiculous. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 10:01, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- Utter crap, if that were the case then political articles would be more or less written by me. They're not. Why don't you try reviewing this article's history and the history of ideology changes by IPs and various editors' reverts back. If you see me all around wikipedia then you don't do a very good job at analysis. Why don't you actually try taking a view on this subject and let consensus happen? I don't control consensus, nobody does. Timeshift (talk) 10:16, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- You are being unhelpful and constantly ignore cited works, timeshift. You are saying Howard himself is wrong when it comes to what he has said about his own party's ideology. The majority of people on this talk page support change. You are the only one saying it is in breach of a "consensus" anyway. It is irrelevant anyway, your position is wrong, contradicts the literature and is unverifiable. This should not be in the article here. The decision here need not be unanimous and your behaviour has had the article locked. The SysOp too has said, it should not be there unless it is cited in the body and doing any literature does not produce any peer reviewed papers saying the Liberal Party is "liberal conservative" or "conservative liberal". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.255.209 (talk) 11:53, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Good point about anti unionism, however this isnt an ideology. It certainly comes under "neoliberalism" though, and also "classical liberalism". Timeshift, it is clear you are the only one who is advocating to keep the 'status quo'. A status quo which, I might add, has very little if anything at all to back it up compared with the much more consistent (again, see articles for the other English Speaking centre right parties) method that is being suggested which has much more, both from outside observers in their publications, and in the party's own documentation, to back it up. The 'status quo' does not remain if it seemingly stems out of nowhere, is clearly at odds with the observations made in other sources, and lacks the support of the majority of editors. Saruman-the-white (talk) 10:22, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- But re the union thing. We've more or less agreed that the Liberals don't have an obvious, classical ideology when compared with the Greens and Labor, and the hatred of unions is one consistent element of policy, possibly the most consistent. In some ways it's the closest thing to an ideology that they have. Maybe it's part of an opposition to someone else's ideology. HiLo48 (talk) 11:44, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- The status quo is kept until consensus is achieved by the community (not a few irregular to regular editors over a few days who propose either different things or nothing). When that happens I will have no issue. Timeshift (talk) 11:14, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- No, as the SysOP said, it is in breach of Wikipedia's policies because it is uncited in the body. It is not meant to be there. This has been an open issue for five months now too and the consensus is for change. You are the one attempting unilateralism here, no one else is. I guess you read some other people's contributions and stop with the unhelpful behaviour. You are at fault here, again, not the majority of editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.255.209 (talk) 11:58, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the above IP editor. Yes, opposition to unions is indeed very consistent as it is in all the neoliberal parties in the English-speaking world today. "Anti unionism" isnt an ideology like traditionalist conservatism, social liberalism, democratic socialism, etc etc, but it certainly comes part and parcel with neoliberalism and classical liberalism, so this is obvious when someone looks at that. Things like anti gay marriage, anti unionism, anti large social spending, etc, are all positions on issues, not ideologies. That is why we say that the first one comes under 'social conservatism' and 'cultural conservatism', as well as, in many cases, 'religious conservatism'; the second comes under 'neoliberalism' and 'classical liberalism' and the third comes under 'fiscal conservatism' and also 'classical liberalism' and 'neoliberalism'. I think we can safely say today that both the ALP and Libs have ideologies that are significantly more broad than traditional political ideologies in the earlier part of the last century - for example the ALP has a small number of socially conservative democratic socialists, however it also contains very significant neoliberal elements, and 'social progressives'. Likewise, the Libs also have a more classical liberal tendency and a more socially conservative tendency, with economic fiscal conservatism and neoliberalism straddling both these tendencies. We can still safely identify these positions within the two main parties, however, even though they are large umbrella parties. In fact, the US republican and Dem articles manage, even though their parties are much more varied and far less centrally controlled than ours. Thus the inclusive proposal which is both broad and inclusive of all the main positions commonly identified as being within the liberal party, internationally consistent, and fits in with the characterisations that are made of the party in external sources. Indeed, what is there now is unsourced and not backed up. It is not even supposed to be there thus is if of priority that it be removed in favour of ideological positions that are actually commonly cited. It seems as if the person who originally wrote this article said to themselves 'oh, its a conservative party, but its named the liberal party, so ill just put liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism, because they include both words' regardless of these terms not fitting the reality and not being cited as the ideology of the party. Saruman-the-white (talk) 12:21, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
- My final propsal as a compromise when the edit block is lifted: Social conservatism, Economic liberalism and Australian conservatism. See my above comments for reasons. The Conservatism in Australia article is interesting, which 'Australian conservatism' would link to. It describes things like opposition to republicanism. Welshboyau11 (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- The problem with ideologies containing Australia(n) is that the article is written by vested interests without a world view. I do not support these articles as much as i'd support one for Australian Laborism or Laborism in Australia. Timeshift (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- Australian anything is a pretty pointless descriptor for an Australian party. And if Turnbull had remained leader (or becomes so again) you probably would not have been suggesting anything to do with opposition to republicanism. Liberal Party ideologies swing in the wind depending on who's in charge and what current ALP or Green policy might stop them and their rich mates making quite so much money. HiLo48 (talk) 22:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- The problem with ideologies containing Australia(n) is that the article is written by vested interests without a world view. I do not support these articles as much as i'd support one for Australian Laborism or Laborism in Australia. Timeshift (talk) 21:49, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
- My final propsal as a compromise when the edit block is lifted: Social conservatism, Economic liberalism and Australian conservatism. See my above comments for reasons. The Conservatism in Australia article is interesting, which 'Australian conservatism' would link to. It describes things like opposition to republicanism. Welshboyau11 (talk) 14:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
"Laborism" is not an ideology, so it would never be "Australian Laborism". Progressivism, Democratic Socialism, and Social Liberalism are ideologies, however. Similarly, anti-republicanism is NOT an ideology - it is a position on a single issue, like 'anti abortion'. It is a position that would usually be associated in Australia with the ideologies of traditionalist conservatism and cultural conservatism. If you guys dont want to use Australian, simply using the more cited and accuracte ideologies without specifying nation would be less misleading and damaging to the article's credibility. In other words, social conservatism, neoliberalism, in the least, and also possibly classical liberalism and economic liberalism (which significantly overlap with neoliberalism). Saruman-the-white (talk) 05:37, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
- Some would disagree but it is beside the point. Timeshift (talk) 07:28, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
Now that the article has finally been unlocked, we might do what we set out to do and seek consensus, although it looks like those favouring a change were easily in the majority.
An IP editor's proposal, which corresponds with the literature on the libs, rather than the current one which includes ideologies which the party has never been referred to as, is a far more accurate categorisation if you read the articles for the existing ideologies listed, and is more in line with the articles for its international counterparts such as the US Republicans, NZ Nationals, UK Conservatives, etc:
- Australian Conservatism
- -Social Conservatism
- -Fiscal Conservatism
- Australian Liberalism
- -Classical Liberalism
- -Neoliberalism
Could we get an idea on those in favour of this proposal as opposed to those in favour of retaining the current inaccurate, inconsistent categorisation which has not been anywhere else other than on this page? Saruman-the-white (talk) 04:15, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Australian <ideology> is not a good idea as has been previously acknowledged. Liberal conservatism, Conservative liberalism, and New Right, are well known. I think they can stay. In addition, I find it suspicious that you waited for the article unlock to "seek consensus". Timeshift (talk) 06:47, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
Why is it suspicious? The article could not be changed whilst it was locked so it would have been pointless to do so then. Well known (not as well known as social conservatism, fiscal conservatism, classical liberalism or neoliberalism) but as of yet unapplied to the Liberal Party and an inaccurate characterisation. But nonetheless... We shall have to do this in a democratic manner. Saruman-the-white (talk) 08:33, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- If you can't see the issue, then I guess an article lock failed to serve its purpose yet again... sigh. Timeshift (talk) 10:18, 31 October 2012 (UTC)
- Oh wow, more edit warring?! Can we please solve this in a democratic way on the talk page? When this issue was open before the lock we had a clear majority to change it so all that's needed is a few people to write whether they're in favour/against and this can be solved with finality. Saruman-the-white (talk) 13:50, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
- Tell me about it, more edit warring despite my notice at the bottom of this talk page, but i'll give the IPs (very slightly) the benefit of the doubt that they aren't familiar with long-term locks/no consensus for change from status quo/talkpage discussion required. Sorry, where's the majority, let alone consensus, for which ideologies? Socks (ie: Welshboy) do not count. Please don't mislead. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 21:13, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
We really don't seem to have got far along the path to identifying a simple description of the party's ideology that would appeal to all. No talk about classical liberalism is relevant here. I doubt if more than a tiny fraction of the members of the party, and an even less visible portion of the party's supporters, even know what classical liberalism is. Party support comes from those whose parents supported the party, those who hate unions (although they'll do deals when it suits them, even secret ones), and who see the Green as a threat to profits. They accept donations from almost anybody, meaning that the biggest donors become the biggest benefactors. Right now, that means the mining industry, but when others have been on top of the financial pile in the past, that's what the Libs supported at that time. Truly not much visible to me in the area of long term principles. It's incredibly hard to put any "nice" or traditional label on this. HiLo48 (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
Do you think for one minute that liberal conservatives/conservative liberals hate unions? liberal conservatism/conservative liberalism, if you go and read the articles, are too very very soft forms of mixed liberalism/conservatism that are not found in the Anglo countries, not even in the UK. They are ideologies that have only been successful in continental Europe. I think you would agree that the kind of conservatism we have in Australia (27% gdp is govt spending vs nearly 50% in the UK, up to 70% in continental europe), opposition to gay marriage, opposition to climate change "action", again, not even seen in the UK, which is more conservative than the rest of europe -- is completely different. A form of conservatism is mainstream here, but also in the US and to a slightly lesser extent in Canada/NZ and significantly lesser extent in the UK, which is significantly more traditionalist/social conservative than the "liberal conservatism" in Europe and much, much, much more "classical liberal/neoliberal" in terms of economics - the difference between aust (27%)/us(32%) gdp govt spending and Europe where liberal conservative parties think over 50% is normal, speak dismissively of ultra anglo liberalism as if it was austere right wing stuff (if they are talking about the brits, most australians would label the same thing soft left), support ETS, gay marriage, and have very different ideas about the extent of an acceptable welfare state - is like night and day. A conservative party like ours would see zero success and probably be seen as extreme in the countries where "conservative liberalism" is the primary form of conservatism. I support the liberal party and am very conservative on most issues myself, but I know of this cultural disconnect between conservatism in Europe and that in her Anglo colonies very well and it appears ridiculous to me for the Liberal Party to be labelled as having the same kind of ideology as some continental European parties which would be seen as being on the left on the Australian political spectrum, when even the British conservatives (not to mention all the other Anglo former colonies) are labelled more accurately. Saruman-the-white (talk) 02:28, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Even the Liberals call themselves a liberal conservative party. We must remember that this article is for an international audience. Timeshift (talk) 02:32, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Well, that link says that Abbott once said that they are "a liberal conservative political party". What did he say this year? And what do others say? I really think we need more than one speech from Abbott for sourcing on this. My other concern is that there's nothing in the body of the article about the party being liberal conservative. Without that, the claim shouldn't appear in the Infobox. HiLo48 (talk) 02:43, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- We also have sourced liberal/conservative claims on featured articles of half-decade-long standing at Liberal Movement and South Australian state election, 2006. It's the best international descriptor. What would you propose in it's replacement? Timeshift (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- I truly don't know. Hence my post at 21:58, 3 November 2012. I'm quite serious about what I wrote there. I think it describes the party's (lack of?) "ideology" much better than some shorthand from elsewhere in the world. A traditional infobox entry just doesn't cut it on this occasion. (They often don't.) HiLo48 (talk) 02:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good reason to put inaccurate, unhelpful content here. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think you've taken WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS too far and out of its intended purpose in this instance - regardless, I think it's easy to say there wouldn't be any support for ideology removal. Do you? Timeshift (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- I prefer there to be no ideology listed in the sidebar than to have an extremely inconsistent one listed which is obviously a mischaracterisation. As for why I support them (although I dislike just about all parties and no matter which I support, it will be something of a lesser of the two evils...) I support the Liberals in Australia because of their relative commitment to small government, lower levels of taxation, less "progressive" taxation, generally free-market oriented policy, and laissez-faire rather than managerial, statist approach to the economy and state (in other words, classical liberalism, fiscal conservatism, neoliberalism would describe all describe these). On the social front, I like their (relative to the parties on the left) opposition to utopian or radical social change based on "progressive" or cultural relativist ideals such as gay marriage, abortion, single parenting, not to mention a greater respect for the stability and maintenance of traditional Western/Anglo based Australian culture and society (in other words - social conservatism and cultural conservatism would both apply to these). Given that cultural conservatism tends to fall under social conservatism, I proposed the ideologies of social/fiscal cons., classical/neo lib. The Liberal party has been referred to as many things (take a look at Abbot's book) and as anyone knows it has been more often referred to as merely "conservative" than "liberal conservative". Even if that term has occasionally been used among many others, the "Liberal" would be referring to Liberalism in the Australian tradition (classical) see: Liberalism in Australia, which is entirely different to the European liberalism which "liberal conservatism" refers to (see article). Wiki is written for an int'l audience so this is highly misleading. Timeshift, you are being highly inconstructive. The present unsourced and highly controversial characterisation should not remain on the page until this is sorted. You seem to have some strange interest in keeping it there. Saruman-the-white (talk) 05:50, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Those articles' citations are unverifiable. The citations contains no publication names.
- Saying a party is "liberal conservative party" is not saying its ideology is liberal conservatism anyway. Howard said, the party has two ideologies: classical liberalism and conservatism. Brevity merits describing these ideologies as "liberal conservative". Abbott's speech would have sounded very awkward if he said "our as challenge as a" classical liberal and conservative political party "is to...". You have simply misinterpreted language pragmatics.
- Verifying secondary source material's citations is important. Considering context is also important. Your errors are easy mistakes to make though.
- Regards, 101.172.213.67 (talk) 20:53, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
- Me? I have been editing Wikipedia for years. Your efforts are the first protracted disputation I have suffered though.
- My points are not "incorrect judgements" either. Abbott's speech was to an International Democratic Union meeting. The speech outlines the Liberal Party having thrift in common with other right-wing parties, like the Republicans. It just emphasises what the party has in common with the other members, it is not a scholarly speech about ideology. Again, context is important.
Regards, 101.173.213.64 (talk) 01:16, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
- I think Conservatism would be the best description, with an internal factions section, like the British Conservatives and the Republicans. --Jay942942 (talk) 13:10, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
Arbitrary section break
From even its earliest predecessors, the Liberal Party has been a coalition of anti-Labor groups. It is a pragmatic party without an overriding ideology, as evidenced by the frequency of its members crossing the floor. That's not to say individual members lack ideology, just that the party as a whole does not have a common ideology. --Surturz (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- That almost precisely matches my view. (But is it anti-Labor, or anti-labour?) These days it might be expanded to also include anti-Green. If I am forced to say what the party is "for", it has to be making money, in the relatively short term. HiLo48 (talk) 19:23, 5 November 2012 (UTC)
- I basically agree, there is another side too though. On top of lower government spending, the Liberal Party also advocates lower taxation such as abolishing the MRRT and carbon price/tax. So they are not exactly misers, they want lower ins and outs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.255.209 (talk) 02:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- Not for everybody. The GST was a massive tax increase, but a sneaky one. It gave government a considerable increase in revenue, but it largely targeted individual taxpayers. Companies could avoid it or pass it on. And the promises to abolish taxes are simply that, promises, not yet truth. Look at history, not promises, for reality. Promises do not equal policy. HiLo48 (talk) 03:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
- It depends on who you mean. The GST is a "regressive tax", low income earners pay a higher portion of their income to it. Overall though, I imagine the Liberals support lower taxation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.255.209 (talk) 07:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
Consensus?
In what world can one editor's obstructionism and persistent accusations of inexperience or sockpuppetry be interpreted as not having a consensus? This is not a jury, this is note a vote. Consensus does not require absolute agreement. You can be pragmatic. Just blank the ideology for now, and discuss amongst yourselves what it should be - but allowing Timeshift to simply reply to the parts of this discussion that they want to, and not actually challenging anything substantial is not going to lead anywhere. For god sakes, I've had acquaintances talk to me on Facebook /out of nowhere/ for talking up to Timeshift; he is a WELL KNOWN nuisance.
The argument regarding reserving the status quo, rather than just leaving it blank is weak, and in his own words: "I don't control consensus", so let it happen by ignoring his obstruction.
I've had a read of the contributions, and he has contributed maybe a sentence or two to the conversation. EVERYTHING else was unjustified accusations of impropriety or demanding the status quo as if it was a holy object. If I could see a sinister bias from the other contributors, or Timeshift actually contributing properly to this discussion instead of just obstructing it for months, this would be a non-issue... 118.210.149.48 (talk) 04:35, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- I like the idea of a blank ideology field. If we can't be explicit and accurate and say things like anti-union and pro-profits at any cost, blank is safest. HiLo48 (talk) 04:39, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- The status quo is used so there is no disagreement about what should be there in the meantime. I'm happy to discuss when other people come to the table - I thank you for doing so, although the manner is very harsh. HiLo, if we were to blank them as consensus, then we would have to do the same to the other political party pages, which would look weird. Timeshift (talk) 05:19, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
- Timeshift, it's time to back down. There is universal and persistent disagreement with your status quo going over a long period. You say you will wait for other people to 'come to the table'. Quite a few have voiced that they strongly disagree with what is written --- as opposed to you, one person, who continue to militantly defend it as if your life depended on it despite it's obvious lack of backup and poor characterisation. You are one person. You are outnumbered. More people agree on blanking the ideology which is hardly necessary for more than 'centre right' in a modern big tent political party anyway, but better explained in detail in the text of the article. I must agree that you have been nothing but obstructionist the entire time and I would thank you to stop persistently exhibiting signs of ownership over the article. Saruman-the-white (talk) 09:29, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
I think Australian conservatism, Liberal conservatism and centre-right are the most ideal ideologies that the LPA fit into. Centre-right covers a broad range of topics and Menzies often described the Liberals as economic liberal and socially conservative thus Liberal conservatism would reign true. Thoughts??
There remains no consensus to have their ideology/position added. Andreas needs to realise he needs consensus to have them added, not removed. I fail to understand why Andreas still fails to understand such a simple concept despite his experience. Being able to be referenced does not automatically qualify something for inclusion, there are many aspects to inclusion, which based on his revert current edit summaries, Andreas still fails to understand. It means he will be given very little chance before disciplinary action should he decide to begin another pointless edit war. Timeshift (talk) 02:55, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- You are so arrogant it's not even funny. Multiple users have contributed to this argument since I stopped doing so myself almost two years ago now because talking to you is like talking to a brick wall. Multiple users have pointed out that you are a nuisance, and that there IS NO consensus to keep the status quo, which you "continue to militantly defend it as if your life depended on it despite it's obvious lack of backup and poor characterisation" (in the words of another user). It's time for you to simply accept that you are on the side of a minority of users who want to keep the status quo. The consensus is simply that sourced content, that IS IN the article itself, be added to the infobox. I don't think anyone really understands why you're so opposed to that. You, Frickeg and HiLo are about the only users who seem to support keeping the status quo, simply because you yourselves all have the opinion that the Liberal Party has no ideology, when many other users and MANY OTHER RELIABLE SOURCES would vehemently disagree with you. It is simply ridiculous that three users dictate a whole page, especially when it is obvious that at least one of you, Timeshift9, are obvious opponents of the Liberal Party, as clearly spelled out in your talk page, so of course you would say the Liberal Party "has no clear ideology". So, I think its time for you to accept that you are in a minority and the (overwhelming) consensus is NOT to keep the status quo. Andreas11213 (talk) 03:56, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- I'm a brick wall? LOL that's rich! You keep failing to understand. Both Labor and Liberal infoboxes should not pigeonhole parties with ideologies. The rest of the talkpage contributors, and with me, are fine with it being included in the body text to give it context - an infobox can't provide context. For you to think this is some POV-driven action is just stupid. You have no support to have them included in the infobox. So on your way thank-you. Timeshift (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- READ ABOVE! Multiple users support me in saying that the Liberal Party has a clear ideology, with many sources to back it up. You have not provided a single source that says the Liberal Party does not fit into the description of "centre-right" and "conservative"/"liberal". You even reverted my edit that added SOURCED material in the infobox, rather than simply leaving "Liberalism (Australian)". Since when was it ok for you to add something in the infobox WITHOUT SOURCES but not ok for another user to add something to the infobox WITH SOURCES. Get it in your head that you do not have sole control over this page, and the consensus you constantly refer to simply doesn't exist. Andreas11213 (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- There is no reason why the article on the LPA (or the article on the Australian Labor Party or National Party of Australia, etc) shouldn't have position and ideology sections in their Infoboxes. There are clear academic sources referencing political position and ideology/ideologies. Also, en.wiki is a 'world'/international wiki, for the benefit of the readers and for comparison purposes, we need information such as position and ideologies provided. There is nothing 'special' about the main Australian political parities that warrants preventing those descriptions being provided.--Autospark (talk) 13:16, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
- READ ABOVE! Multiple users support me in saying that the Liberal Party has a clear ideology, with many sources to back it up. You have not provided a single source that says the Liberal Party does not fit into the description of "centre-right" and "conservative"/"liberal". You even reverted my edit that added SOURCED material in the infobox, rather than simply leaving "Liberalism (Australian)". Since when was it ok for you to add something in the infobox WITHOUT SOURCES but not ok for another user to add something to the infobox WITH SOURCES. Get it in your head that you do not have sole control over this page, and the consensus you constantly refer to simply doesn't exist. Andreas11213 (talk) 07:57, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
"Time to accept the lack of consensus to keep the status quo" - Andreas' latest edit war revert summary. He's been told an infinite number of times that the status quo remains in a dispute until a consensus can be reached to change it. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. This exemplifies Andreas, at best, refuses to listen to all the advice by everyone over the years, at worst is playing with us. Can an admin step in please? Timeshift (talk) 04:35, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- The only thing an admin should be doing is blocking you from editing. You are a nuisance. Multiple users recognize this. Consensus HAS been reached to changed the status quo. Consensus does not mean every single user being in agreeance; it means a majority of users being in agreeance, as is the case here. Read above. You are simply outnumbered. Accept it. I don't know how to put it in simpler terms. And sorry, since when did you gain consensus to add "Liberalism (Australian)"... that's right, NEVER! Andreas11213 (talk) 05:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
- You've got to be kidding. Most editors are supremely better skilled and more respected than you. As for me, I have 10+ years, 60000 edits, 5000 watchlist articles, and these awards from various users... what do you have? A user talkpage full of warnings, and they're just the ones you haven't reverted! You can't even be successful in any of your disputes with me. Do you need a neon sign? Sorry, I didn't realise part of the undo contained a change to Liberalism (Australian)... you haven't come anywhere even close to a consensus for your disputed contribution and that's that. Timeshift (talk) 06:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
Liberal conservatism, Economic liberalism.Paul Lincoln (talk) 06:12, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Liberal Party of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071128104414/http://blogs.abc.net.au/thepollvault/2007/11/can-do-campbell.html to http://blogs.abc.net.au/thepollvault/2007/11/can-do-campbell.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page have been nominated for speedy deletion:
You can see the reasons for deletion at the file description pages linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
Historical female representation: error
We cannot claim that "The Liberal Party and its predecessor parties have been the first to directly elect female representatives to the federal and every state and territory parliament nationwide", because it is not true.
The Australian Capital Territory Advisory Council was not a parliament in any sense of the word. It was a partly elected but predominantly appointed body, and was not a legislative body at all. Its role was to advise the Commonwealth Government on matters concerning the ACT, and the Commonwealth Government made all decisions concerning the ACT. It was replaced by the Australian Capital Territory House of Assembly, fully elected but still advisory in nature.
The first parliament of the ACT as a self-governing polity was the Australian Capital Territory Legislative Assembly, which commenced on 11 May 1989. The assembly contained four female members: Rosemary Follett (ALP, Chief Minister), Ellnor Grassby (ALP), Carmel Maher (independent), and Robyn Nolan (Liberal).
The best claim that could be made is that a Liberal was one of the four women elected to the first Assembly, but acknowledgment of the 2 Labor and one Independent women would have to be made as well. -- Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 08:47, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- It could be said for state parliaments, at least. I think the predecessor parties is the big problem with this claim, though - most of these women were elected before the Liberal Party was a thing, so it's not actually a factoid about the Liberal Party, just a generalised sneer against Labor. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:02, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- Far more damningly, it's not true federally either (Dorothy Tangney was elected at the same time as Enid Lyons and since she won one of the old-fashioned "casual vacancy" Senate seats she assumed it immediately). The same issue as Jack's applies to the Northern Territory, and an independent (Margaret McIntyre) won election to the Tasmanian Parliament seven years before the two Liberal women they're referring to. Let's lose the sentence. Frickeg (talk) 09:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)
- I agree that the sentence would be better not there, but give that it's a logical (if misleading) introduction to the whole section, it would be a bit tricky removing it without further changes. I am also concerned that the article seemingly boasts (on behalf of the party) about its achievements with female representation, but completely avoids the current issue for the party of poor female representation across the board. Overall, it's a very non-neutral presentation of the issue of female representation for the Liberal Party. HiLo48 (talk) 10:37, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
Factions
The term "faction" appears just once in a heading, and in the table of contents. There is no other reference to faction. Should this word be removed from the heading? 124.171.201.157 (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)
Re-open consensus on ideology
Given recent events, largely this year, the broad church of the Liberal Party has seen substantial infighting. This is a reflection of the spectrum of both the small-l liberal and more conservative and right-wing political ideologies composing the party. The recent leadership spill is a reflection of the right-wing Liberal party MPs (Peter Dutton) attempting to take control of the party leadership. As such, I would like to motion that the party political position be changed to "centre-right to right-wing" to reflect this broad church political ideology. Moreover, the ideology section should also reference this broad church position. MWKwiki (talk) 05:16, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- It shouldn't be there at all - we've had a longstanding consensus not to include this because it's so arguable and it inevitably winds up getting changed and edit warred over at least once a week. Apparently someone snuck it back in in September, it got missed, and it actually went a couple of months without a dispute, which is unusual. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:31, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
- I think the current article addresses it well. The Liberal Party was rightly described as liberal conservative and economically liberal and now that Morrison is leader, a more straight "conservatism" has been appropriately added. The rest of the introduction also clearly enumerates the various ideologies the party has been described as exhibiting. On the "centre-right to right-wing" proposal, I would disagree. The Liberals remain a classic centre-right party, albeit maybe slightly more right considering that Morrison is in power at the moment. I think the current Wikipedia model of "centre-right" accurately describes the Liberals, whilst ensuring that there is a clear difference in description of them and parties such as the Conservatives and United Australia. More broadly, there is no concrete reason that this should be changed simply because Morrison is leader. The parliamentary party only make up a very small fraction of the party proper and shifts between one leader or another do not mark fundamental changes to the party's ideologies. --LeoC12 (talk) 10:19, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- IMO we shouldn't use any more than two ideologies for the Infobox (as is my preference for most political parties across the world). Either Conservatism and Liberal conservatism, or Conservatism and Economic liberalism, or (my least preferred option) Conservatism and Australian liberalism. It's a conservative party with (mostly economic) liberal characteristics, so that should be made clear to the reader without needlessly overcomplicating matters.--Autospark (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
The problem is that there are probably a dozen or more ideologies - conservative, liberal, liberal-conservative, conservative-liberal, national liberal, national conservative, classical liberal, libertarian, Christian right, populist, nationalist, federalist, constitutionalist, individualist, etc. - that correctly describe elements of the Liberal Party and could be reliably sourced. If we include only a few ideologies in the infobox, then someone always comes along and adds one more (usually with no source). It defeats the purpose of the infobox which is to summarise. It would be nice if the party had a single overarching ideology, but it doesn't, other than "anti-Labor" (not really an ideology, but a very common description in poli-sci). Personally I would just have piped links to Liberalism in Australia and Conservatism in Australia and not bother with the combinations and divisions thereof, but see above. I think it's better to just have "centre-right" as the position in the infobox, and leave the ideology parameter blank and force people to read the prose (which we need to add more of). Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Really, the best-case scenario would be a 2 or 3 paragraph "Ideologies and factions" section, linked from a "see below" in the infobox ideology parameter. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:30, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
- Hmm, I guess that section already exists. It could do with a restructuring though, it's not very coherent currently. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 16:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)
Case in point. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 05:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)
ideology
@HiLo48: Okay, I'll leave it as it is, but your comment "maybe in the 1950s but not now," is completely incorrect. Have you seen the statistics for migration in Australia? It's WAY higher today than it was in the 1950s. 211.30.105.112 (talk) 06:31, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- That's original research on your part. Wikipedia content has to be based on what reliable sources say, not your interpretation of things. HiLo48 (talk) 09:29, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- What are you talking about? You're the one who made the claim, I am merely debunking it. Just go to this article [1], the ABS has the data for each decade. The ABS is not original research. 211.30.105.112 (talk) 01:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- We're not arguing about that. I already conceded that the label should be removed (so this discussion isn't really too important, I just wrote it for clarification). We're discussing if the statement was true in the 1950's. Again, it doesn't really make a difference to the article. But it was such an unexpected thing for me to see. I was just curious for why you thought that statement was true, that's all. 211.30.105.112 (talk) 12:14, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Economic liberalism
There's a parenthetical comment about the Australian interpretation of 'economic liberalism' meaning free markets and small government (it references footnote 11).
What other interpretation of economic liberalism is there? Would a more specific 'classical economic liberalism' work better and remove the need for the parenthetical comment? Kirkbroadhurst (talk) 13:19, 3 January 2020 (UTC)
Ideology label in this article infobox but not the ALP infobox? Can we remove it?
Can I ask why we have a ridiculous highly contentious much disputed political ideology label in the infobox of the Liberal Party article and then nothing in the Opposition ALP article's infobox? I propose removing this ideology label from this article altogether and avoid endless dispute between editors as has happended again in the thread under the Heading Re-open consensus on ideology. This would also then provide consistency between our articles on Australia's two major political parties. Any opposition to this plan and reasons why or would a removal be okay? Merphee (talk) 02:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
Infobox is too fat
There is way too much width on that infobox, it hogs up the page, especially when you resize the browser window. I'm not sure what is causing it, if it is a template issue or the inputs are causing it. Nonetheless, adding this here, so others may be alerted. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 22:37, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
- This was caused by a long non-wrapped wiki link. I have shortened the link, and have reduced the width significantly as a result. SchizoidNightmares (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Michael Wooldridge as deputy leader was never Shadow Treasurer
At the Michael Wooldridge article I added the fact that as Deputy Leader he did not request to become Shadow Treasurer, making him one of a few and to date, the last deputy Liberal leader who never held the Treasury portfolio either in government not in opposition.
However this has been reverted by MaterialScientist on the basis of original research.
I believe that fact about Wooldridge should be included and to emphasise that most of the time the deputy Liberal leadership and the Treasury portfolio have gone together.
Could someone help with this. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 15:18, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
Political position
Currently described as centre-right to right-wing. This may be a misnomer and I would suggest making it simply centre-right. The comparable left-of-centre Labor Party's article describes it as centre-left. As for the source provided, a somewhat obscure one when plenty of articles can be found on the subject matter, I can't find an instance of it describing the LP as right-wing. Cheers, thorpewilliam (talk) 06:45, 9 December 2020 (UTC)
Presence of some moderates or centrist's denotes some affiliation with center position, whilst dominated by center right and right.
A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:22, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Morrison government section
The section on the Morrison government seems to be biased. It cites the Liberal Party website on multiple occasions, and it's worded more like a press release than a Wikipedia article. While all the information is true, it seems to extol the good parts, and (for instance) skips over the second part of the COVID pandemic. I think it needs more neutrality. YttriumShrew (talk) 13:32, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
- I nuked most of the section because it was promotional twaddle and in a couple of places complete fiction that misrepresented sources. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:47, 31 August 2021 (UTC)
Remove membership arrow/indicator?
The source is ambiguous. Should the green/red arrow next to the figure be removed? Thanks, thorpewilliam (talk) 07:24, 23 September 2021 (UTC)
- I agree. In fact, I think the membership count should be removed entirely. Donnellan0007 (talk) 03:42, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Liberalism versus Australian liberalism in infobox
While the source refers only to liberalism, the article linked is that for liberalism in Australia, and as such James1221911 has changed the description to "liberalism (Australian)". Given the source mentions liberalism and not Australian liberalism per se, the former seems to me more suited. Any comments? Regards, thorpewilliam (talk) 03:36, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- What other country would it be? A bit silly to add it. ITBF (talk) 12:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- Liberalism itself should redirect to the actual page and not "Liberalism in Australia". Also, note that the source is almost 30 years old. If there are any newer sources that describe the party as "liberal" then it should stay in the infobox, otherwise, it should be removed. Vacant0 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2022 (UTC)
- @Vacant0 unless I forget to do so, I’ll find a newer source later. thorpewilliam (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2022 (UTC)