Talk:Liberal Party of Australia
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Liberal Party of Australia article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
|Archives: 1, 2, 3|
|This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, labour (but Labor Party), realise), and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on August 31, 2013 and August 31, 2015.|
|This talk page is automatically archived by lowercase sigmabot III. Any threads with no replies in 2 months may be automatically moved. Sections without timestamps are not archived.|
Daily page views
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)
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)
Labelling the Liberals a centre-right political party is LPA propaganda, not reality. See, for example, reference to source 5 in the opening paragraph, which sets the tone for the entire propaganda piece presented here as fact. That 'source' leads directly to an error page on the LPA's own website. My point: the reference is invalid, and was always LPA propaganda anyway.
There is mounting evidence that the LPA has become an extreme right-wing party. Perhaps even a neo-fascist gang. See for example, a press release by the Victorian Premier questioning the party's links to unashamedly neo-Nazi figures (https://www.premier.vic.gov.au/victorian-liberals-must-explain-extremist-links/); polling by Roy Morgan revealed fears that the Liberal Party represents the rise of fascism in Australia (http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/7712-concerns-australian-government-alp-l-np-august-22-2018-201808231301); the admittedly partisan Australian Independent Media Network lists LPA tendencies that can be considered neo-fascist (https://theaimn.com/so-how-fascist-is-australia-right-now/); a Canberra Liberal under investigation for making a Nazi signal (https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/5998643/canberra-liberal-under-investigation-for-nazi-signal-at-function/); and a Greens senator has openly labelled senior Liberal Peter Dutton a fascist (https://www.skynews.com.au/details/_5755949425001).
I came up with these examples after a three minute Google search. I wonder what a more thorough literature search of academic sources would reveal about the characteristics of fascism, and how the LPA has trended towards these since Tony Abbott's prime ministership. It's pretty irrelevant what the party once stood for in defining its present status and characteristics. What counts today is what it has become in recent years. And the current article is a bit of a joke when it comes to reflecting that reality.
It seems pretty obvious that this page has long been hijacked by, and is largely under the control of people with ideological motivations for telling propaganda lies about the LPA. A sad reflection on what Wikipedia has become in the care of its own cadre of authoritarian bureaucrats.
It is the bureaucrats' crushing arrogance and misguided adherence to a strange, claptrap ideology about 'cupcake fascism' and being 'reasonable', as euphemisms for distorting truth and facts, which makes me unlikely to seek to edit the page myself. I am too busy for edit wars with largely ignorant but intensely opinionated 'admins'. They represent a trend in American thinking that has delivered Trumpism there, and has spread like a disease to Britan and Australia.
While I will not belabour these obvious points any further, I will certainly agitate in my university, and others we have contact with, to redouble sanctions against Wikipedia, rightly already described by our rules as unworthy of being cited in credible, disciplined, transparently argued and referenced scholarly work. I leave it to others here who may care for facts and truth to draw their own concusions about what goes on here. 22.214.171.124 (talk) 21:49, 15 August 2019 (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)
- Sigh. Yes please. If there was a way to salt that field, I'd support that too. Frickeg (talk) 03:08, 22 September 2019 (UTC)
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? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2019 (UTC)