Talk:Liberal Party of Australia/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Ideology and position

Yo chief, can we stop the edit warring in the infobox?

It can be said without question that the Liberal Party adheres to the Australian variant of Liberalism (represented by the likes of Malcolm Turnbull and his supporters) and conservatism (represented by Morrison, Dutton, et al). The labels of Conservative Liberalism, Liberal Conservatism and Classical Liberalism are sourced, but it’s a question of whether including these these labels is redundant as Liberalism in Australia seems to cover these.

We don’t need to include Liberalism on its own as in most of the western world in modern politics refers to social liberalism. There’s a reason why an article on Liberalism in Australia exists - because Liberalism in Australia is a different beast compared to how the ideology is interpreted elsewhere.

“Neoliberalism” - again, redundant. It’s pretty much the economic consensus for all major parties - left and right - of government in the western world. It’s not necessary and the other labels capture this.

“Economic liberalism” - again, this isn’t needed as Liberalism in Australia covers this.

As for labelling the party as “centre to centre-right”, that’s simply ridiculous. In nobody’s right mind is the Liberal Party of Australia considered “centrist”. Personally I’d argue that a label of “centre right to right-wing” is more appropriate but would need a credible source to back that up.

2001:8003:D00A:9A00:F18E:7CB6:2C2:6279 (talk) 13:07, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree. It's worth noting that the person whose edits you are addressing is newly registered (in June) and has contributed to this page overnight (somewhat clumsily and unsigned) in the section above titled Political position. (PS:I recommend that you register too.) HiLo48 (talk)

The Liberal Party is a centre-right party. But I understand why one could consider it to be "centrist". The Liberal Party (the entity, not its members) doesn't hold many social stances associated with social conservatism and conservatism in general. They are de-facto pro-same-sex marriage (I do not believe the party has an official stance on the issue - they allow their members a conscious vote on the topic). This is a single example. The Libs are 100% a moderate centre-right party, but it is entirely possible for someone unengaged with Australian politics to view it as a centrist party. Donnellan0007 (talk) 03:41, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

It is important to list its political position in relation to the Australian political spectrum. The Liberals are a pretty broad church, and have accomodated people with views as differing as Don Chipp and Craig Kelly, but would definitely be described as centre-right. I have considered my position, but I still believe that the ideologies of Australian liberalism and conservatism are the only ones we need to list, as they are the only ones who describe it in full. Conservative liberalism would also fit that description, but I'd say it was redundant given the presence of its constituents in the infobox. YttriumShrew (talk) 06:04, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I think it's important that an article written for international readers not be swayed by popular Australian misunderstandings of the political spectrum. 118.209.224.82 (talk) 10:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd probably favour paring it back to Liberalism (Australian) and Conservatism/Social conservatism; I would agree that the liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism labels are somewhat redundant, (and I personally can't tell the difference). The Liberalism in Australia article spends much of its time discussing the Liberal Party's ideology, so I think it could end up being like a main article link. YttriumShrew (talk) 01:15, 31 August 2021 (UTC)

I think putting Australia in brackets after liberalism is redundant for a page about an Australian political party. Ditto for any other ideologies. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 10:31, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Ivar the Boneful. Then how about we explain it like this?: Conservatism / LIberalism / Liberal conservatism--Storm598 (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

The LPA is more of a (liberal-)conservative party than a (conservative-)liberal party. Therefore, if you want to erase "(Australian)", Conservatism should be prioritized and marked.--Storm598 (talk) 11:45, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

I just suggest writing it down like this:

• Conservatism (1)
• Liberalism (2)
• Liberal conservatism (3)

Writing like this is the only way everyone can be satisfied. LP is a centre-right "liberal conservative" (3) party, but there are centrist "conservative liberals" (2) like Malcolm Tumbul inside and right-wing "social conservatives" (1) like Scott Morrison. (I object to the statement of only "liberal conservatism" in infobox. If you write like that, there is room for editing disputes.) --Storm598 (talk) 02:57, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

There is a risk of ignoring the ideological diversity in LPs if you write down just one "liberal conservatism". This is because centrist groups in LPs show both centre-right liberal-conservatism and centre to centre-left social-liberal tendencies.--Storm598 (talk) 03:00, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

In that case, you would have to import newer sources that support those claims per WP:RSAGE. I will search if there are any. --Vacant0 (talk) 12:32, 12 November 2021 (UTC)

I support just having "liberal conservatism" as the sole ideology listed in the Infobox, and if that is not considered acceptable, I propose "conservatism" followed by "liberalism (Australian)", in that order, as a compromise.--Autospark (talk) 21:55, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

I am concerned that any use of the word Liberal in a definitional way will give every American reader of this article the wrong impression about Australia's Liberal Party. Those there who love using the word as an insult for lefties probably won't be bothered clicking on any Wikilinks to see what the word really means. HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

@HiLo48: While I think that getting American right-wingers to think Scott Morrison is a radical leftist would be hilarious, that is a concern. However, listing the political position as centre-right should mostly dampen the problem, although I am endlessly amazed by the lengths of their ability to see only half of what they're looking at. YttriumShrew (talk) 02:14, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

Yes. "Centre-right" as a description of the party's ideology is fine, but using the word "liberal" in any description of its ideology isn't. HiLo48 (talk) 02:21, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

I've begun thinking that we might need an RfC on this. Since the start of July, I count seven different sets of ideologies encompassing eight different individual ideologies. We could do worse than having a lasting decision on this matter. YttriumShrew (talk) 23:34, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

To avoid incessant infobox warring, it might be better to insert "See ideology and factions section" linked to that section. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

An excellent suggestion. HiLo48 (talk) 21:46, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

A RfC would be more preferable, although what I object is that the source used for the "liberal" claim is old, and I have been only able to find sources that claim LP as economically liberal/classical liberal. In my opinion, only having liberal-conservatism in the infobox is the solution (eg. German CDU, French Republicans also have centrist and right-wing factions while liberal-conservatism and Christian democracy are only mentioned in the infobox). --Vacant0 (talk) 22:11, 20 November 2021 (UTC)

@Peacemaker67, YttriumShrew, HiLo48, Autospark, and Storm598: Any opinions regarding this possible change? --Vacant0 (talk) 12:35, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

I like Peacemaker's suggestion. Don't try to summarise this in a few words in the Infobox. Refer readers to the text. HiLo48 (talk) 00:30, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Factions I think there ought to be a factions list in the Ideology section (infobox) stating the main (and/or more) factions inside the party, which is well established by now: the "moderates", and the "centre-right/right-wing" faction. MarioBayo (talk) 05:41 14 September 2022 (UTC)

References

Another pointless debate about Political Position

In Australia, the Liberal party are considered centre-right.

Some sources:

• https://theconversation.com/liberals-brutal-loss-in-south-australia-reflects-the-fragmented-politics-of-the-centre-right-177917
• https://www.abc.net.au/religion/can-the-centre-right-hold-in-an-age-of-polarisation/10214304
• https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-02-07/women-in-parliament-labor-liberal/10783234

If you think this has changed in the past few years, please find some news (or otherwise respected source) saying as much. Political compass is not considered an authoritative source.

@118.209.224.82 Micmicm (talk) 08:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not written for an Australian audience, and Australian perceptions on this score are widely incorrect. Please cite an unbiased international source you do consider authoritative. Your personal distaste for a source doesnt invalidate an edit 118.209.224.82 (talk) 10:10, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

The BBC refers to Morrison as centre-right:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-61055915 Micmicm (talk) 01:18, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Radio New Zealand says the Coalition is centre-right:

https://www.rnz.co.nz/programmes/the-detail/story/2018842103/australian-election-is-scott-morrison-s-time-up Micmicm (talk) 08:55, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, the Liberals are centre-right, but 118.209.224.82 keeps reverting my edits, and it is not clear that he/she reads this talk page. Would someone else try to argue with him? --Bduke (talk) 06:19, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

rich / poor seats

In Liberal_Party_of_Australia#Ideology_and_factions, while I appreciate the effort to update that section, we need better material than simply a count of how many of the richest and poorest 20 seats are Liberal-held. That is primary source data (WP:PSTS), even leaving aside the dodgy source (Institute of Public Affairs: I don't doubt the numbers, but IPA is likely to cherry-pick data to suit its argument). We should be using secondary source data, i.e. a summary of where does and doesn't Liberal support come from, according to a reliable secondary source. Adpete (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand your concerns. The claim about richest seats has been in the article for a long time. You say you don't doubt the numbers. The change is a highly significant aspect of what happened at last month's election. And let's clarify. The source is MSN, reporting on what the IPA said. What do you believe the IPA's argument is? (I'm not a fan of that mob, BTW, but I don't see the problem here, yet.) HiLo48 (talk) 00:15, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

My problem is that numbers without analysis are often meaningless, or worse, misleading. It's typical of the problem of using primary instead of secondary sources. The implication of the numbers, to a naive reader, is that generally the Liberal party gets more support in poorer regions and less support in wealthier regions. I believe that is still not true. I guess (because I don't have the time at work to research it) is that in the general Libs do well in wealthier or rural regions, with the exception that some wealthy inner city regions have turned green or teal; battle it out with Labor in the middle-of-the-road suburban seats (mortgage belt); and do worse than Labor in less wealthy urban seats. Whether it is that or something else, we need a secondary source which says that sort of thing, not a few numbers. Adpete (talk) 00:49, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

But we now have two sets of "raw" numbers. One set from 2010, that's been there a long time, that told us that the Libs did best in wealthier areas. That is the traditional view of where the Liberal Party got its support. Now we have a new electoral situation. The Libs lost wealthy seats. We have a second set of numbers supporting that, from 2022. The electoral situation has changed. The numbers have changed a lot in twelve years. It seems completely logical to include them. I still don't know what you think the IPA's argument is. HiLo48 (talk) 22:45, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

This whole section is based on poor-quality sources, and a Roskam column should never be treated as an unlabelled factual source. There is a massive debate going on inside the Liberal Party right now, in which Roskam is a significant player, arguing about their future and trying to spin the election results in a way that suits their particular desired course. This Twitter thread from a data scientist at USyd basically explains the problems with these takes, and we should either remove them or add context because they're misleading as is. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The 2010 data is not useful because of the numbers (which are a primary source), it is useful because it links to a reliable, neutral-looking secondary source, which analyses the numbers. We need something like that for 2022, and the IPA appearing on Peta Credlin's show does not qualify. Adpete (talk) 23:27, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Have any of you actually looked for sources? I Googled these numbers, and found quite a lot of sources. I rejected most of the first few I found because they were behind Murdoch paywalls. I detest Murdoch paywalls. The numbers are factual. If you don't like my source, there's plenty of others. Choose one that appeals to you. I won't be offended. HiLo48 (talk) 03:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

We need more than numbers, because analysing numbers is a violation of WP:PSTS. We need analysis. (Reliable, neutral analysis, of course. And I have looked, but without much success so far.) Adpete (talk) 03:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

But the numbers are real. We don't have to tell readers what they mean. HiLo48 (talk) 04:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

But we are telling readers what they mean, right now. They're not in a general statistics section - rather, we're telling them they have meaning by suggesting that they say something significant/accurate/notable about the Coalition's voter bases. I don't understand the enthusiasm for inserting misleading Liberal-right propaganda without context since that doesn't seem to be your personal political angle. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

That's probably because I see it as neither misleading nor Liberal-right propaganda. They're just numbers. HiLo48 (talk) 04:45, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Okay, then let me explain: there is a public war going on right now over the future of the Liberal Party. The right-wing of the Liberal Party wants to abandon the teal seats rather than try to win them back and cede any policy ground on the main teal issues, and believe they can replace them by winning safe Labor seats where, they believe, Morrison-style Liberal politics are somehow appealing. Hence the sudden post-election emphasis by Liberal right figures such as Roskam (and more notoriously, people like Tim Smith) that they (supposedly) represent a portion of the poorest seats, and thus that their future lies there. The thing is, as the USyd data scientist I linked above spelled out in detail, is that it's a very cherry-picked interpretation of the facts. "I reject sources behind Murdoch paywalls, but I think it's vitally important that Wikipedia's Liberal Party article recites the Sky News spin on who Liberal voters are now in Wikipedia voice" is one heck of a take. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not my position at all, and I think you know it. HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Besides, they're not being used as "just numbers", they are being used to support the claim "Until 2022 the Liberal Party's key support base remained the upper-middle classes". We simply cannot use those numbers to support that claim, because it is a violation of a number of policies (WP:PSTS, WP:SYNTH, etc). And if we remove the claim and just leave the numbers, I don't see the point of the numbers being there. Adpete (talk) 05:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I find them interesting. What is actually the problem? 06:33, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Because the claim that is actually in the article is in no way verified by the linked source, and the source is not a reliable source to begin with. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:14, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

In order of seriousness: (1) they are being used to support the statement "Until 2022 the Liberal Party's key support base remained the upper-middle classes", in violation of WP policies; (2) I think the numbers are inaccurate anyway, after checking a few against this list [1]; and (3) as the Twitter thread posted by User:The Drover's Wife points out, there are many ways to slice and dice the data, so why only choose this one (the richest and poorest 20 seats), especially since it is the one being used by a right-wing thinktank? Adpete (talk) 07:41, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Hey, when I first heard the numbers, it was on ABC Radio, not generally inclined to get involved in Liberal Party propaganda. Rather than the core figurers, I found the change interesting, and significant. I am not personally hooked on or obsessed with having the numbers there. but am still puzzled by such firm opposition. I don't have any particular love for my source either. It was simply the first sensible looking one that wasn't behind a Murdoch paywall. I would like to think something about that change in the kinds of seats held by the Libs belongs in he article. I don't care how it's sourced. HiLo48 (talk) 07:59, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The existence/factual accuracy of the "change in the kinds of seats held by the Libs" you want to include is actively disputed. That's why that you want it in there and don't care how it's sourced is a problem. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:49, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

(unindent) I don't see how it can be disputed that their support has changed at the "richer seat" end. So I agree with HiLo48 that a 2022 update is required. But we need to use a secondary source(s), i.e. an analysis by a reputable political journalist or an Antony Green type, not do our own analysis from the raw data. Unfortunately, the only analyses I've found so far have been hastily written pieces in the day or so after the election result. Hopefully one us will find one soon. In the absence of such an analysis, we could simply state the facts, that they lost 10 or so previously very safe seats to Teal independents and Greens. Adpete (talk) 11:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Faction Pages bias

Has anybody thought that it was wired that the Moderates and Centre Right are the only factions of the party that have a page?? i made a page for Draft:National Right (Liberal Party of Australia) last year in 2022, but sombody got rid of it. Its a simple that the National Right faction is one of the major factions of the party. So sombody should fix this issue of one of the factions not having a page.La lopi (talk) 11:55, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to drift slightly off topic, I feel that the factions should not be listed in the Infobox. They should be listed (and briefly described) in the Ideology and factions section of the article.— Autospark (talk) 20:09, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

@Autospark: I agree - GA Melbourne (talk) 07:36, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

Ideologies

Feel like it's better to have a discussion here instead of starting an edit war.

I personally believe adding ideologies such as "neoliberalism", "economic liberalism", and "new Keynesianism" are unnecessary and overly bloat the infobox. "Conservatism" and "liberalism" inherently imply neoliberal and liberal economics, while "new Keynesianism" seems rarely used outside academic circles. The Liberal Party is commonly discussed as conservative and liberal, which I feel adequately covers its ideology and policies. However, I understand that others, in particular Jadamondo, feel differently. I think a discussion is necessary to resolve this. RoadSmasher420 (talk) 00:52, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

What do you think, I do acknowledge the overlap... I was just being more specific too all the known elements of ideology. Maybe we could incorporate it lower down? Jadamondo (talk) 02:00, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

I think incorporating it lower down would be good. I think only conservatism and liberalism are needed as a short summary for the infobox, but the nuances should definitely be explored in the article! RoadSmasher420 (talk) 22:09, 28 February 2023 (UTC)

Ideally the Infobox should contain only "Conservatism" and "liberalism" (or preferably "economic liberalism"), with all other ideologies, and recognised party factions, left to being contained in the article body. Infoboxes should contain just the broadest overview of a party.--Autospark (talk) 16:00, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I am also against the proliferation of ideologies in political party infoboxes. In this case, I would have only "conservatism" (possibly "liberal conservatism") and "liberalism" (or "economic liberalism"). I am particularly against obscure ideologies as "neoliberalism" and "new Keynesianism". --Checco (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree. Arbitrary lists of ideologies are unhelpful, and often very arguable. We need to describe what a party has done, and what its leaders and prominent members say, with excellent sourcing, and let readers see their philosophies that way. HiLo48 (talk) 23:16, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

I think for the sake of clarity the Factions subheading should be removed and Christian right and Right-wing populism be removed as it is only relevant to the Victorian Branch of the LNP - GMH Melbourne (talk) 23:06, 17 March 2023 (UTC)

in my opinion Liberal conservatism moved to the top and stay alongside liberalism and conservatism and the factions should be removed Braganza (talk) 07:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

we could add the factions to the ideology section though Braganza (talk) 07:05, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The “factions” should absolutely be removed from the Infobox immediately.-- Autospark (talk) 09:17, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Being bold: the party is primarily conservative, thus "conservatism" should come first and "liberalism" second. --Checco (talk) 21:51, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think Big Tent may be needed in the "ideology" section, given the vast even its faction. Here for example are article discussing the Liberal Party's 'broad church': The Sydney Morning Herald, 2005; The Conversation, 2019.

Another discussion on ideology. You better believe it!

So we now have reams of articles that describe the factional goings-on within the Liberal Party in Victoria, Queensland and now South Australia. If I were to dig deep enough, I could probably find similar articles within the last few years talking about the other state divisions of the party as well and the influence of the Christian Right and Right-wing populist types within the party structures.

What I’m getting at here is that there’s a common thread emerging here of the Right-wing elements of the party (typically exhibiting a Christian Right and/or Right-wing populist flavour) exerting more influence and control over the party’s ideological direction.

As such, I want to propose that under the “Position” section in the infobox that this be updated to reflect this, to read “Centre-right to Right-wing”. While the ideologies of “Christian Right” and “Right-wing populism” are added under a subheading called “Factions”- which is already the case anyway as there’s always been right-wing factions with people espousing these viewpoints. They’re just evidently becoming more overt about it. Geelongite (talk) 09:18, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

@Geelongite Oppose. The party remains quite firmly centre-right, with conservative and liberal elements. There exists tussling between the factions but the party, as one might expect. We should be cautious of creating too much fragmentation, and you were right to cut back the ideology section in the infobox. Factions in the party are discussed in this article and elsewhere. thorpewilliam (talk) 10:13, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm in favour. The Christian Right is becoming evermore powerful in the Liberal party, though I'm not sure how much longer that will last after the fall of their Prime Minister. commemorative (talk) 03:43, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Oppose too. It's a centre-right party, not a right-wing party. Thiscouldbeauser (talk) 23:54, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Some factions in the info-box?

I'm not sure if this is perhaps a reasonable request. But as the party is so large and has several factions akin to the 2 parties in US. Wouldn't it be reasonable to add factions within the info-box similar to what the Republican and Democratic party? I'm not saying all the factions have to be present, but at least the main ones within this party (and perhaps Labor too). As the factions vary quite differently, with National Right for example not having a consensus with same-sex marriage, while other factions are a lot more progressive on social and environmental policies compared to National Right. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 16:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Leave that for the Ideologies and Faction section of the article body, not the Infobox – the Infobox is meant to be a summarisation.— Autospark (talk) 18:10, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Could a footnote be added similar to how the Liberal Democratic Party in Japan has it? I think the factions of the party should be added/mentioned in the info-box in some sort of way. Not just left for the article body (which not everyone reads/takes a look at). I'm not suggesting that all the faction ideologies/details should be added into the info-box btw. Just a mention/summary of the factions is good enough (similar to how the LDP Japan has it). ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 20:19, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to see a more specific proposal here. Unlike parties themselves, which are legally defined through their registration with the electoral commission, factions are a far more nebulous thing. The article says the party "currently consists of three broad factional groupings". The source for that (from 2021) describes a much more messy and/or complex situation. The factions are not well described in the article. It was says that Scott Morrison leads one of those factions. Since he lost the federal election last year as prime minister, Morrison has been largely missing from parliament. I doubt if he is leading anything there these days. So precisely what would you propose to add? HiLo48 (talk) 22:34, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

My proposal is I think there should be a mention of the factions within the info-box. I proposed a footnote like how its done for the Liberal Democratic Party (Japan). As a factions list like the Democratic or Republican party has it is not understandably preferred. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 14:34, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

You seem to have just repeated what you proposed above, without addressing any of my concerns. That's not a good approach to discussion. HiLo48 (talk) 22:44, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

No to footnotes, and very strong oppose to factions bloating up the Infobox. I don’t care what other political parties list. Leave the extrapolations to the srticle main text. Infoboxes are summaries and aren’t meant to be essays.— Autospark (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

I understand. Though the regional parties of Liberal National Party of Queensland and Victorian Liberal Party have factions in the info-box. Though I think a footnote would be much better and more subtle. A small summary footnote would be more than sufficient. Like the one on the European Conservatives and Reformists Party. A 1 sentence "A" footnote noting the factions of the party. ZlatanSweden10 (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2023 (UTC)

Factional ideologies in infoboxes should be an exception, not a rule. I oppose having factional ideologies and footnotes in this article's infobox, as well as in the infoboxes of Liberal National Party of Queensland and Victorian Liberal Party. --Checco (talk) 20:56, 26 November 2023 (UTC)