Talk:Australian Labor Party/Archive 2

message: I wonder who added it in... good it was picked up by an IP, however is it worth mentioning that he worked for the Social Democratic Students Association of Victoria, an affiliate of the Balaclava branch of Australian Young Labor? Timeshift (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Costello a member of Labor? 

message: Well Costello is actually a liberal (in the true sense, not the wrongly named Liberal Party sense) and the only reason he's working for the Liberal party was because he knew he wouldn't be able to get anywhere if he joined the Labor Party. So yeah, I guess that was some person's idea of a joke saying that he was a member of labour.
19:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Well...

message: Hartley, NSW was the first parliamentary seat to be won by Labour (as Labor was spelt at the time - see Etymology) the candidate being Joseph Cook. In New South Wales in 1891, the first election contested by Labour candidates, 35 of 141 seats were won by Labour candidates.
Query:  If 35 seats were won by Labour candidates, could any single one of the candidates be said to be "the first"?  Wouldn't all their terms have commenced from election day?  Maybe Hartley was the first of the 35 seats to be declared.  If so, I'm not sure this counts as far as "first Labour seat" records go.  --  JackofOz (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also asked this question at Talk:Electoral district of Hartley (New South Wales)#Cook the first Labour member?. --  JackofOz (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Thanks very much.  I'll just go into the article and edit out the inaccurate statement.  Cheers.  --  JackofOz (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Hartley the first?

message: Is the Labor party derived from the original British spelling?
Profession (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I could only assume so. Labour Party was changed to Labor Party in 1912 by King O'Malley. Timeshift (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It was also done to make it easy to distinguish the actual Labor Party from the general labour movement (eg, trade unions), which was a more distinct group back then when trade unions were still fighting for their legitimacy.  I've added this point under the etymology section.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Labor or Labour? 

message: Should the image be moved or removed? When it is placed as it is, it sticks on to the end of the last right aligned image and gets placed wherever that is, and as a result the image of the tree on the left is overlapping with some of the article text. Timeshift (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tree of Knowledge image 

message: Could we use the rule book as a source for the Structure section?  Regards, Ben Aveling 10:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for Structure section. 

message: The Coalition was in control in Federally and in all states in 1969-70. While it is true that the Coalition is two different parties, to say Labor now is "the first time any single party in Australia has achieved this", without at least a footnote explaining the Coalition did in 1969-70, is at best misleading. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I honestly can't see that it's at all misleading.  People have to read the actual words we write.  Those words include "any single party", which by definition excludes any coalition.  I agree there's value in making reference to the 1969-70 achievement by the coalition, but whether that happens or not, the sentence as it stands is completely accurate.  If it had said "the first time this had occurred in Australia" or something similar, that would definitely be not only misleading, but downright inaccurate.  But it doesn't say that.  --  JackofOz (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  First party to be in Control in Federally and all states? 

message: Under the heading "Labor Party Splits"
It mentioned that Brendan Nelson was once I member of the Labor Party.
I changed his title to "ex-party leader"  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.194.44 (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: All the others in that section defected from Labor while they were elected representatives. I don't think Nelson's membership of Labor in his younger days is sufficiently notable for this article (of course it belongs in the Brendan Nelson article) so I have deleted it, it was quite out of place. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brendan Nelson 

message: I've not contributed to the talk page before, so forgive me if I've put this in the wrong place.
Could we have an update on Modern Labor, particular in relation to the current Rudd government? Some of the discussion I've seen on private pages including yours timeshift9, on abandoning neoliberalism (pure free market stuff) - which seems to characterise previous labor governments -  and returning to Keynesianism (in the context of reactions to the global credit crisis etc) is something that should be on the entry, surely. The quote from 1998 is now quite old. Something more recent?--Daleatwiki (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Has the Rudd government really moved to a Keynesian economic platform? Hardly. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and you certainly cannot say that economic rationalism as the main economic direction has been abandoned by either party. And in reference to my userpage, the Liberal Party does not advocate libertarian pure free markets. Australia has always been somewhat to the economic left, we have what many would consider sufficient regulations to ensure that what has happened in the US does not happen on the same scale as Australia. Timeshift (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

text: The quote is from Rudd, and I haven't heard anyone say that Rudd has shifted significantly since 1998. I'd say that unless a decent source can be found indicating a change over the last decade, then the Rudd 1998 quote is fine. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

text: Social democracy isn't dead within Labor, it's still alive and well. It's just that both parties have been economic rationalists/neoliberals to varying but similar degrees since Hawke came to power (as do the 'left' parties in say, the US and UK, it's not an Australian thing) - and note it was Labor who first espoused economic rationalism while in government. You may not know it but Keating and Howard worked together on economic policy closely in the 1980s. Socially, Howard/Libs didn't care for equal LGBT rights (they may claim to but never bothered to do anything for 12 years), Labor fully supports the changes, whilst the Liberals are currently in the process of ripping themselves apart over it. Aboriginal apology. Easing of detention conditions. The list goes on. All parties do not implement just monetarist or keynesian or this or that type of economic policy. The other point is that the modernising economic reform that began in the 1980s is more or less complete. Even the Liberals admit there isn't much left - tax reform the arguable exemption to this. I could call Menzies a socialist, or we can just call Australian governments pragmatic. But this really is just debating the issue - let's move on shall we. Timeshift (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Biggest problem here is that while it's an interesting debate it's also completely original research. Wikipedia is meant to report the concurrence of reliable sources on a topic, not advance controversial theories of its own. Off the record, yeah, I'd agree with Ballard that Rudd has actually been remarkably consistent, although there was a significant departure from his usual style for about 6 months either side of his getting elected. Orderinchaos 12:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Update Modern Labor re Rudd 

message: Having the photographs of ALP PMs down the side is a great idea, only someone forgot poor Frank Forde, he was PM between Curtin and Chifley, could someone please add him (also perhaps photo of PJK eeds to be change to one of him AS the PM) Thank youu 203.206.241.73 (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Frank Forde was never elected leader of Labor. He was only interim PM. As for PJK, there is no free image available of his time as PM. So no to both. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: On reflection, I think 203's point is valid.  Forde may not have ever been elected leader of the party, but he was the Prime Minister heading a Labor government, because he was sworn in as PM by the Governor-General.  Interim maybe, but for his short reign he was every bit as much PM as Menzies was.  He was chosen because he was the (unofficial in those days) Deputy Prime Minister but the (official) Deputy Leader of the ALP.  Who else would have been more appropriate to step into the breach upon the death of the incumbent?  I believe his photo deserves a place.  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  10:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photographs of Labor Prime Ministers 

message: I was the one to originally add this many moons ago, but several months to a year ago when someone removed it, I agreed with them. Though it may still be stipulated in the ALP constitution, there is nothing democratic socialist about the ALP. I think WP:IAR, in a sense, can be invoked in this situation, because if someone wants an understanding of the ALP, it would be very foolish and incorrect to leave a reader with the sense that they are democratic socialists. If someone wants it there for a historical understanding, the article is (relatively) quite indepth in terms of ALP history. Therefore, I reverted the user who re-added democratic socialism. I would appreciate a discussion here, rather than an edit war in the article. Timeshift (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: While I accept that democratic socialism is not the dominant ideology of the ALP, I wouldn't describe it as a dead ideology in Labor.  This essay shows how democratic socialism is relevant to Labor's philosophies and objectives.  Democratic socialism is also an important ideology within the Socialist Left faction, where its support within Labor largely comes from.  It is a philosophy held by many members of the ALP and should be mentioned, even if other philosophies such as social democracy or social liberalism may be more influential. Wcp07 (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Democratic Socialism]] as an ALP ideology 

message: Is the address for the HQ (161 London Circuit, Canberra) correct? I've tried searching and other then the ACT branch I can only find is the National Secretariat which is located at 19 National Circuit in Barton but not the HQ. If the HQ is still located at 161 London Circuit, then it would be the CPA Australia building. Bidgee (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It wouldn't be a bad faith assumption to assume that you are making the CPA point in an attempt to get people with ALP/anti-CPA tendancies on-side would it... ;) Timeshift (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Really I have no bloody idea on what you're saying! I couldn't give a rats ass of this so called CPA thing you seem to have, I'm talking about the location, of which CPA happen to be in which is also meant to be the location of the ALP HQ. Bidgee (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems the wink did nothing to indicate sarcasm. What else can CPA stand for? Never mind. Timeshift (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  ALP Headquarters 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Update for info box 

message: 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)
replies: text: No. We rely on WP:RS, not peoples' bias. Timeshift (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Left or centre left? 

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