Talk:Liberal Party of Australia

Factions and preselection

I would like to propose some additional information on the machinery of the party and how it differs from other Australian political machines. I would also like to table the lists of presidents and members etc - it just looks a little sparse at the bottom of the article.

thanks guys - tell me what you think.

Bluemorning32 (talk) 05:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

The conservative Liberal party

Well one thing that can't be disputed is the fact that the Liberal party is conservative and right wing. I mean, who could dispute such a fact when the Liberal Party under John Howard was responsible for letting in record numbers of immigrants? Or the fact that it was the Liberal party that introduced Gun Control. Or the fact that the Liberal party was the self-confessed "best friend Medicare has ever had". Who could dispute such a claim that the Liberal Party is Conservative or right wing? Who I ask you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.240.69.86 (talk) 08:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I mean.. There's just so many clear examples of where the Liberal party of Australia has demonstrated its right wing tendencies... such as ......... ohh wait a minute, there aren't any examples are there? You know, aside from the fact that the Liberal Party CLAIMS to be right wing. In which case, I CLAIM to be the smartest person on earth and I need no qualification to be the smartest person on earth aside from my claim that it is the case. I say I am, therefore, I am!

The Liberal Party when it came to power slashed health/education/infrastructure funding, taking Australia from a high rank amongst OECD countries to a low rank amongst OECD countries. And let's not forget John Howard's "I'm the most conservative PM this country has ever had". And how many news cites would you like that quote the Liberals as 'centre-right'? If you feel self-conscious supporting a party that is conservative/right wing, that's your issue. You can spin it all you want but the facts are there for all. Timeshift (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I thought that the point of a wikipedia article was to provide unbiased information to the masses not to express your own ludicrous opinions. Gloryify (talk) 05:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Turnbull v Nelson

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

Liberals themselves using Adam Carr's images

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

Hard right

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

This is not a blog or messageboard where you can play games of political "gotcha" while mining quotes from politicians, looking for damaging material. This is an encyclopaedia where we are supposed to maintain some form of POV. If you want to fight ideological battles, go do it somwhere else, otherwise stick to some sort of measured opinion. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 05:49, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and this is Pyne, a Lib MP's POV. Libs open up about party troubles, first and introductory sentence - THE Liberal Party is signing its own death warrant if it stays with its hard-right policies, opposition frontbencher Christopher Pyne says. If you wish to dispute it, why are you not prepared to have the gall for consensus discussion rather than simply continuing to revert? Which part exactly do you dispute? That they have MPs who describe them as far right? Well I've given a WP:RS. Why not specifically state which bit irks you so we can work on it, rather than blind reverts that serve to disrupt rather than build on consensus. Timeshift (talk) 05:52, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

As is quite clear from my comment above, I dispute its inclusion at all and see the entire exerise as another example of bringing political disputes to wikipedia articles. To use the views of one MP in one article to make an assertion of any standing is well outside any boundary of WP:UNDUE. As for blindly reverting, my previous run ins with you leave me little confidence that this discussion will lead anywhere, and I have little patience for tortured discussion on these types of issues. Hence this is my final contribution. Note: raised at WP:AWNB. -- Mattinbgn\^talk 06:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So the fact Pyne (and perhaps other small-l liberals) describe their party as hard right doesnt warrant any mention? We should be including all points of view on the party, not just the ones currently there. I would appreciate discussion instead of reverting. Also, what the hell is 'Australia is pretty leftist', especially from an admin? And minority views are excluded, majority views only? WP:WEIGHT? I'm surprised by the exclusion of this viewpoint of the party. Mattinbgn is showing no spirit of consensus, he is insisting on his way and his way alone, by thinking it is ok for wikipedia to contain some points of view but not other points of view within the Liberal Party. Timeshift (talk) 06:17, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This article is an overview of the party and is not the place to air the occasional grumbling of party members, even important ones. Especially not on the day they first appear in the news. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:37, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

So does MP Christopher Pyne describing the Liberal Party as "hard right" not warrant a mention anywhere? Pyne and possibly other MPs speak for a section of the community, without a mention anywhere on Wikipedia I feel it is just another censure of minority views. Pyne is not the only small-l liberal, and he wasn't even one of the handful of rebel MPs during Howard's time in office. Senator Payne said to paraphrase, the Liberal Party was supposed to be a broad church but she and other leading moderates were shut out during the Howard years. Or does non of this warrant a mention anywhere? Timeshift (talk) 06:46, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The right vs broad church debate definitely belongs, absolutely. But that is different from picking up a single quote from Pyne. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:51, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

The quote should not be mentioned in the right vs broad church debate? Isn't that in itself POV? All points of view should be represented. Is it the actual format quoting you don't like? It can be reworded. Any MP calling their party hard-position in modern Australian politics, and arguably as some would mention, is definately noteable. Timeshift (talk) 06:58, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Hence the mention of Mark Latham's criticisms in the Australian Labor Party and Kevin Rudd articles. Not. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:09, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

sofixit! Hard right is quite significant however. Timeshift (talk) 07:12, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Did Pyne actually use that term though? The part in bold looks like a subeditors headline, and reading through the speech I see no mention of that term. Auspoliticsbuff (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

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

Would anyone object adding some sort of mention on Christopher Pyne? Timeshift (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

A discussion of thing's he said in his article would, to me, be appropriate, so no objections to that, however I agree that it doesn't belong in this article. dihydrogen monoxide (H₂0) 09:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Agree that Pyne's opinion, if to be relevant anywhere at all, belongs in his article. Michael ^talk 09:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

If I may further elaborate, this is a case in point of why adding things straight to articles fresh from the presses is absolutely irrational. As far as I can see, Pyne did not use the term "hard right", it was a media invention, and he was merely making a case for the organisational reform of the Liberal Party. Read the article over. Pyne is not quoted as saying "hard right". Michael ^talk 11:10, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed for what it's worth that it doesn't belong here, it belongs at Christopher Pyne, if anywhere. Maybe Wikiquote, if it was an actual quotation, which it looks like it wasn't. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 12:26, 5 March 2008 (UTC).

Liberal/National merger

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

It's been proposed on and off over the years, and even though it may never happen it might serve a good purpose to have a history of the failed attempts/suggestions/proposals. Something like "Proposals for a merger of the Liberal and National parties (Australia)" might be a more suitable title. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:27, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

How about something like "Historical relationship of the Australian Liberal and National parties" that way it can be broader and cover not only the failed merger attempts but also the history of coalitions and three way split elections, etc. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 10:43, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

What WikiTonwsvillian mentions belongs under the existing Coalition (Australia) article. (An article which needs a lot of work, BTW). While merger talk is just talk, I think the potential merger belongs as a section of Coalition (Australia) rather than a new article. Also, without wishing to sound too negative, I think the names proposed by J and W are too long. Just my opinion. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:02, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I think an article on this topic is needed - perhaps "Liberal-National coalition relations" or some such. The attempts by the Liberals in various states to annihilate the then Country Party between the 50s and 70s (and the Country Party's fightback, often through the personae of Doug Anthony or Sir Joh) would definitely make for interesting reading in that. Orderinchaos 16:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Classical liberalism

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

Why am I being abused by Michael? I added that the Liberal Party of Australia is the only party of the name Liberal to be any form of member of the International Democrat Union, rather than Liberal International? There is no opinion or editorialising, it is simply stating fact. Search for the term liberal on both pages. There is a reason all, and I mean all overseas news articles refer to John Howard's party as the "conservative party", to the "centre left labor/labour party", from one to another to another. Menzies got the name from Deakin, despite "Deakin’s political legacy is more ambiguous. The present-day Liberal Party, which bears the same name as the party he led, claimed him in various statements and an annual lecture; but since the 1980s it has distanced itself from his form of communitarian liberalism and state activity. He occupies a lesser place in the Liberal pantheon, which is dominated by Robert Menzies." Source: APH[3]. Believe what you wish, but this is a worldwide audience, Australian liberalism is unique. I would appreciate discussion rather than reversion. Timeshift (talk) 03:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone will seriously deny that the Australian Liberals are more conservative than liberal, but the way to do it is to quote WP:Reliable Sources to that effect, rather than engage in WP:Original Research into the memberships of International Democrat Union and Liberal International. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

That's the thing. I've simply stated that they are part of the IDU (correct) of which there are no other Liberal Parties (also correct), and stated the typical Liberal int'l affiliation. I haven't said that because of this then so on and so forth, there is no argument put forth. Timeshift (talk) 05:57, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I disagree. They are also the only Australian member of IDU. (And the Nationals aren't, strangely). They are probably also the only IDU member led by someone called "Brendan". Why are some facts significant but not others? That's what WP:RS are for. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:07, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The Nationals historically arent anywhere near IDU ideology. A party says something about itself, the first name of the party leader does now. The Liberal Party of Australia is the only party of the name Liberal to be any form of member of the International Democrat Union, with many being conservative in the list. Overseas media reports the party as conservative per the RS links above. After stating that it is not listed in the many liberal parties in Liberal International (are there 20 Brendans in this list?), it then goes on to state that Menzies chose it in reference to the CLP. Timeshift (talk) 06:12, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Overseas media reports the party as conservative per the RS links above" -- agreed, and notable.

"The Liberal Party of Australia is the only party of the name Liberal to be any form of member of the International Democrat Union" -- Probably true, but not notable unless you can provide a RS showing it is notable. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:23, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It's probably true that the 2007 election saw the lowest informal vote in the Senate since federation (actually it is, and cited). But just because I didn't find it out from a news article, doesn't mean it needn't be mentioned. It fits in with the party being conservative per those RS links, and links in to the fact that Menzies named the party after the CLP. It comes down to this: "Robert Menzies called the Liberal Party the 'Liberal Party' because he did not want to call it the 'Conservative Party'. So it was a political play. It was a line. And it probably worked. It's true that Menzies ran on an anti-Labor, anti-socialist platform whilst copying Labor's political structures."[4] Timeshift (talk) 06:29, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Peter for raising the point of notability. My "abuse" (note these " " things) was a simple way to state what Peter has said more politely and less concise: that you are adding this in order to contrast the party with others, and make it appear as something it is not (hence why when you first did it you had these little things " " which gave away your intentions). Regards, Michael ^talk 07:01, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Are you saying that the party is liberal rather than conservative in a global view? Your "appear as something it is not" and classical liberalism would make it seem so. It is clear that without commentating, the sentence states they are the only Liberal Party IDU participants unlike LI where Liberal Parties are grounded, and goes on to explain Menzies chose Liberal in reference to Deakin/CLP. We really need to remember that this is a global audience, and one Liberal Party in the IDU might be a bit unexpected to some, because let's face it, globally the party is not Liberal, it is conservative - per the WP:RS links that Peter agreed with above. Timeshift (talk) 07:05, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

There is already a "philosophies" section, which goes over liberal / conservative / centre-right for the global audience. Michael ^talk 07:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

But not the affiliation. I note this (yes its a blog but its quoting a Policy article): Charles Richardson, former Kennett adviser, notes that "Australia’s own Liberal party is a member of the centre-right International Democrat Union rather than Liberal International". Why did a Liberal raise that point? Beats me. Unless they're the only Liberal Party in the IDU that is... Timeshift (talk) 07:25, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

I find it interesting that is the only thing you can find it in. Revealing, to say the least. Michael ^talk 10:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Because journalists dont get involved in the irrelevance of international affiliations. But if we are going to have them, then the fact theres 1 in IDU and dozens in LI, where the name was derived from the CLP/Deakin. I still fail to see at what exact point you object - it seems to be a floating rationale. Timeshift (talk) 12:33, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

"Social Conservative" comments

The article says, "In recent years, during the Prime Ministership of John Howard, the party moved to a more socially conservative policy agenda, including tough stances on Mandatory detention in Australia and support for the Iraq War.". I would not call Mandatory Detention or support for war "social conservative" doctrines, nor does it match the definition in the Social conservatism article. Would others agree? I propose deleting the word "socially" from the sentence above. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:34, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Disagree. Apart from believing both are soc con, it is also just giving a few examples. If you wish to give other examples, what do you propose? Either way Howard did bring the party to the right socially, which is the point here. Timeshift (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Well Keating was the one responsible for mandatory detention so are we going to add a bit about his hardline social conservative agenda on his bio?70.189.154.83 (talk) 23:46, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

If it isn't mentioned, you're welcome to add it to his bio. But mandatory detention is one thing, the extent Howard took it to is completely another. Timeshift (talk) 00:12, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"The extend Howard took it to is completely another?" Gee, editorialise much? You may not have put it in the article, but the fact that you're even willing to state such a blunt opinion in the comments section speaks volumes about your motivation with regard to finding convenient references of dubious relevance to slot it into an article.70.189.154.83 (talk) 16:04, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

• How is support for the Iraq war "socially conservative"? The regime that was toppled was more conservative than the regime that replaced it. I have no problem with the assertation that the party moved to the right under Howard, but I think the Iraq War is not a very good example of it. I think "border protection" or similar would be a better example than "mandatory detention"... the "conservative" aspect is refusing refugees, not particularly the manner in which they are refused. --Surturz (talk) 02:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• I intend to remove the "Iraq War" example. Does anyone object? I have no problem with the inclusion of the line "In recent years, during the Prime Ministership of John Howard, the party moved to a more socially conservative policy agenda", but I think the Iraq war is a poor example. I also intend to replace "Mandatory Detention" with "Border protection". It is hard to make the case that detention is a "socially conservative policy", since the Keating government introduced it. An alternative to "border protection" would be something about making it harder for asylum seekers to gain asylum, but I can't think of a good phrase for that. --Surturz (talk) 05:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

• "Border protection" as such, though, isn't inherently socially conservative. It's more the how than the what. The Iraq War however was an extreme social conservative position in the Australian context though and came down to an "all the way with LBJ" attitude, whereas social liberals tend to be far more accepting of Muslims and far less accepting of the United States's foreign policy objectives. Additionally, opponents from within the Liberal Party of the Iraq War were from the party's moderate or "wet" wing, whilst pretty much the entire centre and left opposed it from the start. While I realise I'm speaking utterly from OR here, it would take about 5 minutes to find a reliable source, I have a number of academic essays about the Howard era and foreign policy. Orderinchaos 08:26, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Family First are social conservative (by the definition in the second paragraph Social conservative article) and opposed the war (and voted against "border protection"). The definition in the Social conservative does not mention issues such as war or immigration. So I disagree with OIC that support for the Iraq War was "extreme social conservative". Peter Ballard (talk) 08:52, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

On a number of surveys they separate out moral and social issues on separate axes - I'd say FF are conservative on the first but probably agree more with Labor and the centre on general social issues. Should be noted even One Nation opposed the war in Iraq, on primarily nationalist lines (not our problem, spending our money on it). Orderinchaos 13:49, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

I don't think we're all going to convince each other (even though I'm sure I'm right :)). But it occurs to me that the real problem with the sentence is that it is WP:Original Research. I'm not disputing that's it's true (give or take the word "social"), but someone has engaged in a little WP:SYNTHESIS. The real solution is to remove the mentions of policy from the sentence (the only mentions of specific policy in the entire article) which try to support the point, and instead support the point with a reference (which shouldn't be hard to find). We can then go with whatever terminology that reference uses, be that "conservative", "social conservative", or something else. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:08, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, let's ditch the examples for now. --Surturz (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Hunter Liberals

A new editor has recently created Hunter Liberals. It's poorly written, improperly referenced and at the wrong page. I was going to suggest it be deleted but I have no doubt somebody will disagree so I'm proposing it be merged here instead of prodding it. A merge here will correct the location and in the process, hopefully get the information written properly. --AussieLegend (talk) 08:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I was reaching for the speedy deletion button, but I think that there's enough of a claim of notability to make a redirect or merge the better option. Branches of Australian political parties almost never meet WP:ORG and are deleted if taken to AFD. Nick-D (talk) 11:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hunter Liberals merger

I know I created the page and that doesn't mean anything but, the Hunter Liberals are independent from the Liberal Party itself and do not 'tow the party line'.

They are the representation of the Hunter on behalf of the Liberal Party and are only in local government, hence, it, hunter liberals, could have mention on the Liberal Party website, but do infact have right to its own artice. -Watchover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchover (talk • contribs) 11:47, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

But they aren't noteable for wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 05:48, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Hunter Liberals are not independent of the Liberal Party. All candidates are members of the Liberal Party and were endorsed by the Liberal Party as Liberal Party candidates at the Local Government elections. Based on comments here, including those by the Hunter Liberals creator stating that they're only in local government, I'm convinced that the article doesn't meet WP:ORG. So far any notability achieved is really WP:ONEEVENT. I also don't see any reason now why to merge the information here after all. When I get a chance I'll probably withdraw the merge proposal and submit an AfD. --AussieLegend (talk) 23:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, it is not a one-event. The Hunter Liberals banner still exists, and I believe that it is to be used at both state and federal elections. As I understand it, the idea is the raise awareness of the party being active in the region. --Athol Mullen (talk) 04:34, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Local branches of major parties are still almost never noteable enough for wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The Hunter Liberals has just created a sister independent Liberal brand on the Central Coast, Central Coast Liberals, created by Chris Hartcher MLA. Both the Hunter Liberals and the Central Coast Liberals will be in effect at the 2011 State Elections where candidates will be standing in the State seats of Hunter: Cessnock, Maitland, Newcastle, Lake Macquarie, Charelstown, Swansea, Wyong, The Entrance, Terrigal and Gosford. -Watchover. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchover (talk • contribs) 12:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merge of List of Liberal Party of Australia leaders by time served

Any suggestions? it is plausable information Watchover (talk), 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Given the lack of information in List of Liberal Party of Australia leaders by time served I don't see why it can't be merged into the list of leaders here. Making the table sortable will allow display as required. --AussieLegend (talk) 06:53, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

 Done --AussieLegend (talk) 07:27, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

anti-Lib POV contribution

The anon IP keeps re-adding his anti-Lib POV. He doesn't understand the difference between what's fact and what's POV. I can't be bothered removing it again. Timeshift (talk) 10:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

First current Lib leader to have no image coming soon...

Heads up... Timeshift (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)