Talk:Australian Labor Party

Archives
Untitled Archive One Archive Two

Update for info box

Im updating all info boxes for the political parties represented in the Australian House of Representatives. Does anyone object to replacing the current info box with the one presented below? GJGardner (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Australian Labor Party
250px|Australian Labor Party Logo
Leader	Kevin Rudd MP
President	Michael Williamson
Deputy Leader	Julia Gillard MP
Founded	1891 (1891)
Headquarters	161 London Circuit, Canberra ACT 2600
Ideology	Democratic Socialism, Social democracy, Social Liberalism, Third Way
Political position	Centre-left
International affiliation	Socialist International
Official colours	Red
House of Representatives	83 / 150
Senate	32 / 76
Website
http://www.alp.org.au/
Politics of Australia Political parties Elections

Position on titles, knighthoods etc

It's long been my understanding that the ALP does not support the awarding of honours that come with any sort of title, which is why there was trouble at the mill when Dorothy Tangney, William McKell (admittedly above politics by then), Jack Egerton and some others accepted knighthoods. And why Hawke had the Knights and Dames of the Order of Australia abolished. But I cannot find anything in the ALP platform or constitution that talks about this issue. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. Can anyone come to my aid? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 11:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Anyone? -- Jack of Oz ... speak! ... 08:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Due to the number of Catholic Irish in the party, the ALP is pathologically opposed to anything of "English" origin. They illogically include honorific titles - but not other honours - in this category. I believe the recent adoption of the American spelling of "Labor" is also part of that anti-English sentiment in the party. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Never sure whether to ignore trolls like this, or give a constructive reply containing the truth so that others are not led astray. The name has been spelt the current way since 1912. Hardly recent. And I wonder if our IP poster thinks that Wikipedia's policy of also ignoring honorific titles is due to the dominance of Irish Catholics here? HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Left or centre left?

Is the Labour party leftwing, or centre left? I would have thought that a social democratic party (i.e. communism combined with democracy) whose members still sing the Internationale at conferences has to be left wing rather than centre left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

No. We rely on WP:RS, not peoples' bias. Timeshift (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

And it's always better to let people draw their own conclusions on a party's position rather than give it a simplistic label. HiLo48 (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If Labor Right is the dominant faction of the Party than why is it listed as center-left?

Neo-liberal social conservatives is about as right as a mainstream party could be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)

Attempts to categorise party ideology

I have twice deleted the assertion that the Labor party's "ideology" is "Third Way." There is no Labor platform or policy document that uses this expression - not surprisingly, since it is a discredited cliche from the Tony Blair era. Assigning it to the ALP is no more than someone's opinion, and thus POV, OR and various other Wikipedia thoughtcrimes. Kevin Rudd may well have used the term in a speech but that doesn't make it party policy. Labor is defined in its Constitution as a democratic socialist party, and that is the only ideological descriptor which can legitimately be used in an infobox (although the text of the article correctly makes clear that this is widely acknowledged to be an obselete statement).

More broadly, as the posts above illustrate, it is almost impossible to assign one- or two-word "ideologies" to most modern parties. I would delete all references to "ideology" from party infoboxes unless such a descriptor is used by the party itself in its title or policy documents. But in this case I will only insist on deleting "Third Way," which is clearly false. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:12, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes, and China is run by a communist party. Wait, I see rudimentary free markets! Wiki doesnt use these boxes solely for what the official party platform is, that has never been the criteria for inclusion. Labor on wiki has had democratic socialism, social democracy, and third way for a long time, and it's backed up by multiple primary and secondary WP:RS. I understand you feel third way doesn't belong, but that doesn't mean that other people agree... Timeshift (talk) 19:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

First, spare me your silly sarcasm. Second, show me these "multiple primary and secondary" sources. There's none given in the article. The expression "third way" appears twice without any attribution, and once in a speech made by Rudd as a Labor backbencher. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 22:52, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm pretty much with Intelligent Mr Toad here. Third way would certainly need strong references. And again, my view is that trying to put simplistic descriptors of unofficial policy positions in Infoboxes is very artificial. Actually, I don't like Infoboxes much at all, largely because they attempt to drastically simplify often very complex situations. HiLo48 (talk) 01:10, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Before I start listing reference after reference, I think i'll do the sane thing and ask what sorts of references would be accepted, and what would be tossed aside and classed as irrelevant. Do speeches by Labor MPs and Labor leaders count? Do news articles by News Ltd and Fairfax media count? Would we keep it strictly to news articles or would opinion pieces coun too? It's pretty easy to say that the party platform doesn't say it so therefore it shouldn't be there, and that it is too simplistic, but what is even more simplistic is to see what Hawke/Keating/Rudd/Gillard have implemented through parliament, and call it democratic socialism/social democracy - it beggars belief. To have simply democratic socialism/social democracy is far more misleading than democratic socialism/social democracy/third way. Finally, I use sarcasm because it's a pretty good Simpsons line. How can the Chinese government be communist when they have pseudo free markets? Can I ask, will everyone rush over to Communist Party of China and start removing from "Communism,Marxism–Leninism, Maoism, Deng Xiaoping Theory, Three Represents, Scientific Development Concept, and Market socialism" and "left wing to far left" simply because it isn't in the party's official party platform? I mean c'mon, i've seen figleaves before, but the rationale behind this has to take the cake. Timeshift (talk) 05:19, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, use some of those references to update the article. Things like that shouldn't appear in the Infobox without well sourced mentions in the text. "Third way" appears three times in the article, once with a broken link, once unsourced, and once with a link to the abovementioned Rudd speech. So we really only have Rudd's speech for this policy position at this stage. If there are more good sources for it, put 'em in the article. Give me a couple of good ones and I could be a happy camper. HiLo48 (talk) 05:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

An infobox is supposed to be a place for simple statements of fact. "Leader: Julia Gillard." But a party's "ideology" is not a simple matter of fact, it's a matter of opinion. Who gets to decide what Labor's "ideology" is? Timeshift's view is that anyone can decide this - News Ltd, himself, backbench MPs. I dispute this. My view is that if Labor says in its constitution that it is a democratic socialist party, that is what must go in the infobox (or else delete the "ideology" line altogether, which is actually my preference). If there are sources disputing the truth of this description, they should be cited in the body of the article. So if Timeshift has sources asserting that Labor is not a democratic socialist party, but rather a "Third Way" party, he is free to cite them at an appropriate place in the text. He is not entitled to insert his opinions in the infobox as though they were facts. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Not only have you failed to reply to any points i've made, you've also claimed i've said things that I haven't. When did I say I have sources saying Labor is not a democratic socialist party? I never said this. Please respond to my previous post. I'm not going to start gathering sources from Labor MPs/leaders and News Ltd/Fairfax unless I know this will get me somewhere. Going by the lack of a reply to my post above, it seems no amount of references would satisfy. Please re-read my post above and reply to that. If you accept it like HiLo appears to, then I will go ahead and gather references. Please advise. Timeshift (talk) 04:59, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, this is really very simple. The basic rule of Wikipedia is that any assertion of fact must be referenced. So if you want this article to assert as a fact that Labor's ideology is "Third Way," you must produce a reputable source which shows this to be a fact, and not just someone's opinion. Examples of an appropriate source would be the party's platform or constitution, or a statement by the party's leader. If you can't do so within a reasonable time, the assertion must be deleted. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, you have just justified my position. What you propose is an exception to the rule - to accept primary souces over secondary sources as WP:RS. Enjoy :) Timeshift (talk) 07:11, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

You produce your sources, and then we can discuss their validity. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:30, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

He's right Timeshift. As I said above, "Third way" is very poorly sourced at present. One link to one speech by a past leader. (Does it even reflect current policy?) If you have better sources, it would add to the article. Please dig 'em up. HiLo48 (talk) 22:36, 14 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm not doubting he's right. I've been away for the weekend, you know me, i'm a 5-year plus editor and always happy to back up what I say. But before I do start manipulating various search engines (and it does take time to use the right search strings): is this what it boils down to, or is it simply a way to buy time before Mr Toad begins the whole "thats a source but not a WP:RS" line of questioning? I asked above what sort of sources would be accepted - i'm still waiting on a reply. Qualify which ones are deemed acceptable and i'll gather. Otherwise it's just an exercise in futility. Timeshift (talk) 06:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

They must be sources which demonstrate as a fact (as opposed to someone's opinion) that the ALP has an ideological position called "Third Way". I've already given you my opinion of what kind of sources would substantiate that assertion. My view is that there is no source that could outweigh the party's own assertion in its constitution about what its ideological position is, but I'm willing to wait a few days and see what sources you have. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

I will do the required searching and gathering, but remember, every article or speech is written by a person. When you say "as a fact", you're simply trying to allow primary soucrs and disallow secondary sources, considering what an ideological position is - an interpretation. Timeshift (talk) 06:26, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

As I've pointed out, we only have one source at present, a speech by Rudd. Whether that be a primary or secondary source, it's not enough. HiLo48 (talk) 07:17, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I will gather the citations. Timeshift (talk) 05:30, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

"The Third Way is controversial because some in the Australian Labor Party (ALP) argue, with some justification, that the ALP invented it." "The ALP leadership, past and present, has argued that the policies that the Hawke-Keating Labor Government of 1983-96 provided the basis of Tony Blair’s New Labour platform in the UK in 1997." "Keating and others in Australian Labor circles argue that Australia provided Blair with the Third Way" http://www.actu.org.au/Images/Dynamic/oldsite/public/papers/thglobal/thglobal.doc

Battin, T., 'Laborism, the Australian Labor Party and the Third Way', in Paul Boreham, Geoffrey Stokes, and Richard Hall (eds), The Politics of Australian Society: Political Issues for the New Century Second Edition (Melbourne: Addison Wesley Longman 2000). http://www.une.edu.au/staff/tbattin.php

"From the mid 1990s, attempts to redefine Labor Party values in terms of democratic socialism have produced theories of a 'third way'." http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/2001-02/02rn28.htm

"Many people laid claim to being the progenitors of the Third Way, including Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, who did their best to disavow the nation-building, redistributive legacy of Ben Chifley's postwar Labor government and the more independent foreign policy of Gough Whitlam." http://www.smh.com.au/news/opinion/third-way-becomes-the-empty-way/2008/08/20/1218911823678.html

"... seemed to fit in well into Third Way politics of UK prime minister Tony Blair and US president Clinton, but also of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating in Australia, Jean Chretien in Canada, and Gerhard Schroder's 'Neue Mitte' in Germany" http://books.google.com.au/books?id=XjdXj24B2rEC&lpg=PA44&ots=uENvojkhT8&dq=%22bob%20hawke%22%20%22tony%20blair%22%20%22third%20way%22&pg=PA44#v=onepage&q=%22bob%20hawke%22%20%22tony%20blair%22%20%22third%20way%22&f=false

It's only a quick 10 minute attempt, but i'll be better off gauging the level of citation required first before spending more time, if needed. Comments please. Timeshift (talk) 05:53, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

So, as I expected, you've produced a collection of commentary by various people arguing that the policy positions which during the Blair period in Britain were called "the third way" (between socialism and Thatcherism) were actually invented by the ALP during the Hawke-Keating period. That's quite possibly the case, and this should be noted at some appropriate place in the article. What you have not done is produce any source which shows as a fact that the ALP, in 2012, has (owns, is in possession of) an ideology (a formal set of political ideas) called (designated, known by the name of) "Third Way". And that's not surprising, because no such source exists. No such source exists because in fact the ALP does not have an ideology called Third Way, and never has had. The only formal statement of the ALP's ideological position is its constitution, which says it is a democratic socialist party. Now you can argue that in fact it is not a democratic socialist party, and I will agree with you. In practice is a pragmatic centrist party, with both a socialist wing and a Catholic social conservative wing. All of that can and should be canvassed in the article. But that's not the point at issue. The point at issue is the infobox, which states as a bald fact that the ALP has an ideology called Third Way. That is plainly factually false. You've had a fortnight to demonstrate that this statement is true, and you can't, because it isn't. I will wait a while to see if anyone else has any comments to make, and then I will delete this false statement. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:03, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Which is why I asked what sort of references you'd find acceptable, and why I didn't bother looking for more... looks like I was completely justified. As far as you're concerned, the only ideologies you find acceptable are those that the party itself deems it officially is. That is not how the infobox works, as stated above. As the inclusion of the third way is the status quo on this article, I won't hesitate to defend it should it be removed. So perhaps you should stop chest beating and say you will delete it, because it won't get this discussion anywhere. Timeshift (talk) 21:10, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The only source among those new ones that says anything about Labor post Hawke/Keating is the Parliamentary Library one, and it's not clear who is providing this name of "third way". Obviously the party now is quite post Hawke/Keating, which makes your other new sources unhelpful. In fact it could be argued that labelling the Hawke/Keating years as third way, as those other sources do, means that what we have now is not third way. It leaves us with one cryptic new source. (Plus the existing Rudd speech link, but again, he ain't in charge or in a position to define policy any more.) I'm not convinced we have good sourcing there. HiLo48 (talk) 04:33, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Whom are you looking for a source from precisely? Is Rudd/Hawke/Keating and others including commentators (Latham too) not enough? I repeat, official party documents is not the criteria for inclusion. If it was, parties around the world like Communist Party of China would need a big overhaul. What precisely is the issue? How would *you* best describe Labor? "Third Way" and other ideological names may not be perfect, but they never are. They are supposed to provide an approximation. Political parties on wikipedia all around the world have their ideologies as what they are, not what their official party documents say they are. If not Third Way, what then? To have soc dem/dem soc only is horribly wrong and uninformative and completely misguides to readers what sort of policies modern Labor pursues, and is not done on other government party articles on wikipedia. I'm very happy to compromise if a compromise ideological term could be reached, but considering the above, I don't think anyone could give an alternative. To argue for purely soc dem/dem soc, unfortunately, is to argue for misleading the reader. Timeshift (talk) 04:59, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

One problem with political parties is that their ideologies change. In fact, I reckon I could find quite a few sources saying that today's Labor Party has completely abandoned ideology for "Whatever it takes to beat Tony Abbott". That's why Julia is there rather than Kevin. As I said above, Hawke, Keating and maybe Latham were aiming for a third way, at least partly, but if Gillard hasn't mentioned it, it's not current policy. That absence of clear ideology means we must be very careful saying anything formal in the Infobox or in categorization.

You could find those sources, but they wouldn't be coherant ones. Labor's policy settings have hardly changed since Abbott came to power. We don't need current policy to be of a Third Way position, i've already stated this above, and regardless... it's a primary source! We do not need to be careful if the rest of the pages don't as long as it's citable across multiple reliables. Timeshift (talk) 07:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be misleading to list a historical ideology without qualification. Almost all your sources are about the Hawke/Keating days. That's goes under "History", not a description of the party today. HiLo48 (talk) 07:37, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

In practical terms, democratic socialism and social democracy are historical - not Third Way. Labor's general economic stance since Hawke has invariably been of the Third Way flavour as opposed to socialism and social democracy. Shouldn't we call a spade a spade? It would be madness to describe this party as only what it states it is. Again, look at all the government party articles around the world. Timeshift (talk) 08:26, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Timeshift, do you have no grasp at all of the difference between a fact and an opinion? Or of Wikipedia's policy on Original Research? You have stated quite openly that you won't accept listing the ALP's ideology as being what the party's constitution says it is, because you don't think it's an accurate description. As I've said, I agree that it's not. But that doesn't mean that you can substitute your opinion, or anyone else's opinion of what the ALP's current ideological position actually is. That's Original Research, and it's not allowed. What matters at Wikipedia is not what it true, but what can be verified, and your assertion that the ALP has an ideology called Third Way cannot be verified. It's simply an opinion. You ask what then should appear in the infobox under "ideology". My answer is nothing. The ideology of most political parties cannot be summarised in one or two words, and that is particularly true of an essentially non-ideological party like the ALP. The "ideology" line in the infobox should be deleted and the question of what the ALP's actual political position is should be discussed in the body of the article. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:14, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

That proposal fits perfectly with my notion that Infoboxes are fundamentally evil. They force complex pieces of information to be summarised in one or a handful of words. Not encyclopaedic at all. HiLo48 (talk) 11:18, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Infoboxes are fine for providing simple and uncontroversial statements of fact. But they cannot be used for such subjective and controversial subjects as what a party's "ideology" is. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Things like name, DOB, party membership, official title are fine. Anything involving opinion or any complexity at all needs to be just in the article itself, with full details. HiLo48 (talk) 21:53, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I would strongly suggest actually reading what original research is. If it's the opinion of multiple reliable source commentators as well as Hawke/Keating/Latham/Rudd, with no leaders reputing Third Way as an ideology, it's not original research. If other government party wikipedia articles around the world do it, so can we. To stick with official party ideology is rediculous, other government party articles don't follow this bizarre and original researched formula. I'm still awaiting a compromise. I guess we'll have to stick with the status quo until then, or until more editors give their say. Timeshift (talk) 22:50, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

OK, since no-one else has offered any opinions, and since you're outvoted two to one, and since you have not produced any factual evidence that Labor has an ideology called "Third Way," I am again deleting the line from the infobox. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 23:01, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Two to one is not consensus, nor is consensus a simple majority. Reverted to status quo. Timeshift (talk) 04:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Date of foundation

Both the infobox and the text say Labor was founded in 1891. But this article is about the Australian Labor Party, which was founded in 1901. There was no such political entity as Australia in 1891: what were founded in 1891 were colonial Labour parties in NSW and Queensland. This distinction can be explained in the text, but not in an infobox. I therefore think the infobox needs to be changed to say 1901, and the point about the colonial forerunners of the ALP explained in the text. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

OK, Ziktor, now you have to produce a reference for your apparent belief that the Australian Labor Party (as opposed to NSW amd Qld labour parties) was founded in 1891. Good luck with that. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 12:31, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Ideology

Someone has added "Social Liberalism" to the list of supposed Labor "ideologies." This section of the infobox is just a standing invitation for people to add their unsourced opinions. The fact is that Labor is not an ideological party, and it doesn't have an ideology, official or unofficial. So I've deleted the section altogether. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:14, 26 February 2012 (UTC)