Talk:Liberal Party of Australia/Archive 1

message: In the Australian Labor Party page, there is a link to Critics of political donations. I added a similar link to the External Links section of this article, but it was reverted because "link isn't properly contextualised & otherwise indistinguishable from any other-party criticism of Liberals". It's not a criticism of Liberals so much as an analysis of where they get their donations. Should the link also be removed on the ALP page, or added here?
:I say removed on both - they're a bit generic as far as criticism goes. Slac speak up! 12:09, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: marriage has never been high on the "gay agenda". gays have many rights in australia. homosexuality is no longer illegal. the law specifically prohibits discrimination against homosexuals. has howard tried to remove any of this protection? no.
with reference to the GST. you must understand and accept, that the GST was only introduced after the liberal's went to an election on it. there was no deception of any sort. they said "a vote for us is a vote for the GST" and they were re-elected. on that point - ask steve bracks (labor premier of victoria) if he said that he would toll the scorsbey freway when he went into an election. there are many lies in politics. the GST was not one of them.
in conclusion, when you wish to stippulate what a word means, buy a dictionary first. Xtra 09:05, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: in response to the annonomous user (again)

message: You assume to know what gays want? If you even looked at public opinion, you'd realise that gays do indeed want gay marriage... it's called equal rights. Secondly, you act as if every gay person should be thankful that homosexuality isn't illegal anymore. You think homosexuals should be greatful their not imprisoned anymore for their lifestyle? and shouldn't dare ask for equal rights? Now that would be conservative, small minded "Liberal" thinking.
Oh, and bringing up Scoresby is weak. How does a small toll on an optional freeway compare to a permanent 10% tax on every item and service?
This will be my last post. This is obviously not about the facts anymore, because if you asked any person on the street, they would never consider using the term neo-liberal to describe the Liberal party. Never.
:The GST is not a tax on everything. Bread is one example that comes to mind of an item not subject to GST. And I suggest you read Liberalism in Australia. As for the decriminalisation of sodomy in Australia, as a gay person I am pretty thankful it is legal now. And yes, I am grateful to the state Labor government in 1989 who repealed the law. - Mark 10:26, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not too sure. Perhaps Xtra was talking about the sexual harassment or anti-discrimination laws enacted by the Federal government. - Mark 10:37, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: good. cause i am sick of replying to your distorted nonsense. Xtra 10:47, 7 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: get a life. i like to update details on my page regularly to make it better. i will resist the urge to make the same comment about your claim to be doing law. with regards to pretending the liberals are neo-liberal - many are. i myself am conservative and i made that point clear on your previous talk page. this is my last response to you as this is unproductive. Xtra 03:06, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: i love arguments based on false pretences - don't you? :P Xtra 01:36, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: i will no longer dignify anything you say with a response. however, if you edit any article to push your POV, i will revert on the spot. Xtra 04:06, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  In response to Xtra...again 

message: While I am by no means a support of Australia's liberal party, the current article spends too much time on what they are not, instead of focusing on what their policies are. Better organization and better coverage of the party's positions and membership would be appreciated. Stirling Newberry 03:46, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a good idea to start, afterall, they have dominated the federal level of Australian politics for some time now. Stirling Newberry 04:34, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: this  is the federal constitution. each state (or division as the constitution refers to it) has its own constitution. they may be on the individual websites. Xtra 04:41, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  PSYCH's idiosyncratic use of neo-liberal aside, the article really does need to have more detail about the ALP's policies and beliefs. Stirling Newberry 13:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  RFC 

message: I am respectfully asking that PSYCH and Xtra stop this revert war. Xtra's usage of neoliberal is the prevailing one - namely economic liberalization, reduction in barriers to trade, selling off of state owned industries and so on. It does not mean liberalism in the early 20th century sense of the rational use of government to stabilize the economy and regulate commerce. Stirling Newberry 13:15, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert War 

message: The statements below are written by someone with deep disgust for Liberal Party.
Editor needed here with genuine NPOV.
"Strong opposition to socialism and communism in Australia has long been a Liberal preoccupation and raison d'etre. Anti-communism was successfully exploited through the 1950s and 1960s by Robert Menzies and his political successors." User:Sydney2006
*Please put your comments at the foot of the page.
*Please sign your comments.
*The statements you quote are perfectly factual and NPOV. 
Adam 04:26, 22 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In comparison to Adam's rather blunt and uncompromising response, I'd simply suggest changing "preoccupation and raison d'etre' to 'strength'. This article is subtly biased against the Liberal party, there is no doubt about it. -   Gt 11:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Prinicipal policy platform? The anti-communism party? There was a lot more to the party than that (which that sentence suggests). I still stand by changing it, acknowledging your comments. -   Gt 01:51, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Liberal Party thing being opposed to communism has waned and should be noted as such. Howard is clearly now trying to court China, for example. The word "exploited" is somewhat loaded I feel. The "political successors" needs to be clarified as it may be a subtle thing to promote bias. Certainly I feel Howard is actively going out of his was to court China.Blnguyen 03:16, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hello Adam - I fully acknowledge that China has been economically capitalist for the last 25 years Adam. If you mean communism as in economic communism then true, but I meant that Howard doesn't attack countries run by "Communist" parties. I don't think the Liberals have a very good view about Cuba and N Korea, for example, but I'm guessing if N Korea suddenly procreated to 1 billion people, then Howard might want to give Kim Jong-Il lots of hugs as well.Blnguyen 07:35, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: the final sentence of the main entry:
"In state politics, however, the reverse applies: the Liberals and Nationals are in opposition in all Australian states and territories."
is this really true? i don't think so. somebody delete it.
:Er, they are. They are in opposition in every state and territory, and have been since 2002. Ambi 05:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not if I have my way ;) . Xtra 06:37, 15 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opposition statement 

message: I received the following email from the Manager of the Parliamentary Archives:
: There were a number of conservative parties in NSW politics in the early days of political party formation (which can be said to have begun with the formation of the Australian Labor Party (ALP) in the early 1890s).
: The first Liberal Party was formed in 1902. After its defeat in the 1910 elections a Liberal and Reform Association was formed to reorganise the party. In 1911 this became the Liberal Association of NSW, which merged into (or became) the Nationalist Party around 1914. The United Australia Party (UAP) came into being around 1926; and these two merged to become the present Liberal Party in 1944.
: There is a short account (from which the above is taken) in Volume 1 of 'The People's Choice: Electoral Politics in 20th Century NSW', edited by Michael Hogan and David Clune (2001) (3 volumes) (pp. 132 - 133).
: A book on the history of the conservative parties in NSW is also being published soon as part of the Sesquicentenary of REsponsible Government celebrations: 'From Liberal to Liberal', edited by Ian Hancock.
-- Newhoggy | Talk 10:40, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The early Liberal Party 

message: As per Liberalism in Australia, "However, a valid argument could be made that the Liberal Party is a classical liberal party of the paleoliberal mold" - can anyone provide citation for this? Timeshift 11:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well they're definitely more paleoliberal than modern/progressive liberal. But classical liberalism typically rests on the minimum of laws in regard to social issues too. The Liberal Party, like the ALP, is not especially dedicated to individual rights in the social sphere; the Liberals are quite socially conservative. They fall under the broad definition of liberal conservatism. From that article: In other countries where liberal conservative movements have entered the political mainstream, the terms "liberal" and "conservative" may become synonymous (as in Australia and in Italy). This is largely true I think. But it should be easy to find a citation that they are a classical liberal party. ~ Switch (✉✍☺) 07:57, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Paleoliberal

message: I think the following should be mentioned in the article;
*That the Victorian division was officially known as the "Liberal and Country Party" from 1949-1965
*That the South Australian division was officially know as the "Liberal and Country League" until 1974. (I know this is briefly mentioned, but its not explained).
*That the Queensland division was officially known as the "Queensland People's Party" (um not sure when exactaly, in the early days anyway).
I would add this but I am not sure where the best spot would be. All three were considered to be divisions of the Liberal Party of Australia. Indeed this article badly needs histories of the state divisions to be written. Or even maybe separate articles for each division. Suggestions? Teiresias84 09:16, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Names of state divisions

message: In a number of states, extended Liberal predominance during the immediate post-war period was sustained by electoral malapportionment.
Ha! I've studied this extensively and its not true. Malapportionment existed in Victoria, South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland in this period.
This statement is accurate in regards to South Australia - the malapportionment was terrible and the LCL governed from 1933-1965.
However in Victoria malaportionment existed until 1953 and the Country Party benefited at the expensive of Liberal and Labor, to the extent the CP won government with around 10-15% of the vote. Bolte brough malapportionment back in 1965 (under pressure from the CP who held the balance of power in the upper house) and although the Liberals won every election until 1982, they won a 2PP majority in every election until they lost government.
In Western Australia the malapportionment didn't favour the Liberals as much as Labor won some country seats due to the mining towns etc. They (Labor) held government from 1933-45 and again from 1953-59.
In Queensland malapportionment was introduced by Labor and it intially benefited them. Later on it was adapted by the Country Party and it benefited them, the Liberals suffered more from its existance than Labor.
So that statement is only true in regards to South Australia, and the issue is well covered in the Playmander article. So I'm reverting the edit.Teiresias84 02:35, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I also have a general problem with this sort of comment in such a general article. The implication is that the Liberals didn't really have support or "deserve" government. But there have been other cases where the party with the highest vote didn't get government, such as a party winning the marginals despite a worse 2PP vote (as in the Australian federal election, 1998 or South Australian general election, 1989), or an independent member backing a party no one expected him to back (as in South Australian general election, 2002). So the malaportionment comment opens the floodgates for all sorts of comments and qualifications. So probably better to not mention it, at least not in such as general article as this one. Peter Ballard 07:13, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd remove it. It just isn't true. Rebecca 06:08, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Malapportionment

message: Reading the three pillars of Neoconservatism, can someone explain to me how the Liberals under Howard are not neoconservative? I'm not trying to troll, this is a serious question looking for a serious answer. Timeshift 07:41, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see five. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 12:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neoconservatism

message: A gallery of head shots of former leaders is not a fair use. --Peta 00:18, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How? And why is it only you that has come along and only you that's had the issue with the page? Do something constructive. Timeshift 00:29, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do settle down, Timeshift. Fair use doesn't allow for decorative use.--cj | talk 09:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

text: The reference you're looking for is Wikipedia:Non-free content. "Fair use" is shorthand for describing the limited conditions when non-free content, especially images, may be used in Wikipedia articles. —C.Fred (talk) 13:44, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not going to debate this, however I will state the practicality. Do you REALLY think any political party is stupid enough to sue something like this over a few leader images? Imagine the bad press. Not going to happen. Timeshift 13:53, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Foundation policy is what it is. Yes, they happen to use US law as a baseline for the policy and made Wiki guidelines even stricter than US law. Discussion here is not going to change Foundation policy, though, so unless we're discussing specific cases of how to use images in this article within the guidelines, any further discussion is off-topic. —C.Fred (talk) 13:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The Foundation is incorporated in Florida. It's quite normal when you sign a contract, for example, with an overseas corporation that the contract specifies whose law is used in case of disputes. In Wikipedia's case, it is the law of Florida. Orderinchaos 14:07, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

text: ... The Soldat article has barely any references and yet it survives. Let's delete all this article's references. NO FISHING. --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 12:21, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use

message: The Liberal/National government of Australia recently prevented the removal of discriminatory laws that would have allowed the partner of one of our High Court Judges getting access to a pension. The cabinet of the Coalition (Liberal/National Parties) then decided that any decision regarding halting the continued discrimination of Gay and Lesbian individuals could be postponed to an inderterminate date.
This is something that obviously goes to the core of the organsation and should be reflected in the page.
Grant
Discrimination is a point of view, they believe like the majority of Australians, that homosexuals should not be allowed to be classified as defacto relationships.--Polygamist times 4 13:52, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The majority? Most surveys indicate about 70% support in the community for gay law reform and while obviously this is a majority stance on the left, there are many on the right who share such views too. Their attitude would essentially be that in economic terms it is more efficient, and would clean up reverse inequities where two people in a gay relationship can claim equal Centrelink benefits, etc. In response to the original comment, what does this have to do with the "Liberal Party of Australia"? I personally know of gay and lesbian members of the Liberal party, I know of straight Liberals who have a belief that discrimination is bad while still holding pretty much every other belief you could attach to the economic and social right, and then you have people such as Warren Entsch, Malcolm Turnbull, Russell Broadbent, Judi Moylan etc who advocate a more sophisticated response to the question. Orderinchaos 13:58, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Continued discrimination against gay and lesbian citizens of Australia. 

message: Came across this interestingly enough - thought others might like to read. Timeshift 09:25, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Radio National hindsight - liberalism from federation to today

message: Liberalism as a political doctrine is so vague it should almost be banned from the English language. At the most simple level, a Liberal is someone who fights to protect or further the liberty of individuals. Well duhhhh! Every political party in every democracy in the world claims to fight for the liberty of the individual! The not so subtle differences (say between Liberals in the US and Liberals in Australia) don't come into it until you look at FROM WHAT do said political parties claim to protect the liberty of individuals.
Liberals in Australia (except for John Howard and his cronies who has taken the Liberal Party and turned it philosophically on its head) believe the liberty of the individual must be protected from overbearing Governments. Liberals in the American sense believe that the liberty of the individual must be protected from their employer, from the poverty trap, from the upper classes, from not being able to reach their full potential as a result of poor education or health care etc etc. 
Here in Australia we have gotten ourselves so confused about Liberals we have taken to calling them "small l liberals" and "big L Liberals". I blame John Howard, who does not really believe in Liberalism whichever way the word is used, and I blame the word itself which covers such a massive range of political points of view that it becomes almost useless. 
Please bear in mind that anywhere I have used, or will use, the word "Liberal" or "Liberalism" i refer to the concept in political science and not the Australian political party. The modern Liberal party has little to do with Liberalism. If I mean the Liberal Party or Liberal Party Politicians/Followers I will say so.   
So having made it though my lengthy prologue I want to suggest that where it says:
:"Socially, the Liberal Party is a conservative party, although it has a minority socially liberal wing.
...it should probably link to a page about "Classical Liberalism" rather than "Social Liberalism". The "small l liberals" (as we so stupidly say in Australia) that form the minority wing of the Liberal Party are NOT social liberals. Peter Costello, Petro Georgiou, Judi Moylan (I assume these are the Liberal Party members referred to in the above line as social liberals) are "small government" liberals. They are the liberals I refer to in my second paragraph that believe that individual liberty needs to be protected from Government rather than from exploitative employers as do American liberals (Democrats and everyone to their left). 
One might be inclined to want to think that these politicians are "Social Liberals" because they seem to be so far to the left of John Howard. But don't get confused. John Howard is not ANY kind of liberal in the political science sense. ANY Liberal following the principles of liberalism, whether they believe in big government or small, would apologies to aboriginals for the injury done to their liberty in decades past, allow gay marriage and treat refugees with dignity and respect. I don't mean to attack John Howard although I do quite dislike the man. I just mean to point out he is a conservative and a populist and not a liberal of any kind of philosophical tradition. Ryan Albrey (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a name. The Labor Party isn't about Americans or pregnancies is it? Also, the talk page is for improving the article, not discussing the issue. Now, while some of your rant addresses the actual article... yeah.  --TheSeer (TalkˑContribs) 12:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How will you improve the article without discussing the issue? I wouldn't mind adding a section that discusses why Menzies gave the party the name Liberal, what he meant by Liberal, how the party has changed from what Menzies intended it to be and some mention of the fact that the philosophical tradition of Liberalism has been sidelined during the Howard Years. Nothing about what I have written is really a rant. Ok maybe it is a little bit. Perhaps I make my POV a little too obvious when I say that I dislike John Howard, but then again what is wrong with revealing a POV in the talk pages? It is only the article pages that need to be NPOV. Ryan Albrey (talk) 14:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ryan tries to explain

message: Nobody saw this for two weeks... Timeshift 06:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mmmmm, two week old vandalism 

message: I have changed "The party's current federal leader is John Howard who has narrowly lost the 2007 federal election on Saturday 24 November to the ALP's Kevin Rudd" to just "The party's current federal leader is John Howard" - I think it's a big assumption to say how close it was considering the votes are far from counted, and current projections are showing a vast majority of ALP seats. Perhaps it can be changed to something a bit less limiting at least until, you know, all the votes are in. Karlww (talk) 13:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That seems fine.  "Narrow" isn't NPOV and I wouldn't use it myself.  Problem now is dealing with who will be leader: once (if) it's official that Howard loses Bennelong, then technically the Liberals will have no leader since the leader is determined by the parliamentary caucus (which implies that it must be someone in the House).  The current situation is hard to write about from a Wikipedian perspective. Kelvinc (talk) 05:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  2007 election result 

message: Yet we have a picture for all four possible leadership contenders. Hahaha. Timeshift (talk) 03:08, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  No picture of Costello 

message: Is this for real, and if so, does it warrant a mention? Timeshift (talk) 04:02, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is for real but I don't think it warrants a mention. The only people that mention it are those that have breathlessly preceded it with "The Liberal party is not in power anywhere in the country!". Better to avoid the caveat "Oh but they are in power in one local council" by using the more qualified and reasonable "The Liberal party now for the first time in their history, does not hold power in Federal Parliament or in any of the states". Ryan Albrey (talk) 03:35, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most senior Liberal in office 

message: Is there a full list anywhere on Wikipedia? Timrollpickering (talk) 14:23, 29 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deputy leaders 

message: I don't see why the names of Liberal leaders past and present can't include the abbreviation of their title. Brendan Nelson was a medical doctor so he should be referred to as Dr Brendan Nelson on wikipedia. Same goes for past leaders such as John Hewson. Ryan Albrey (talk) 06:44, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Their wikipedia page should address them as such in the lead intro. Timeshift (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If it is ok to put on their personal Wikipedia article why isn't it good to put on the Liberal Party article also? I think you are a bit too revert-happy Timeshift. Particularly when you sense the editor in question has a POV. But whether the editor who added Dr and Sir has a POV or not the fact is that adding Dr and Sir improves the article by making it more informative. Without increasing the number of lines in the article I might add. So I really can't see what your objection is to writing Sir and Dr. Is there a WP:Policy you can refer to? Ryan Albrey (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't know. But titles should go in their articles lead. Timeshift (talk) 13:00, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Knighthoods and Doctorates 

message: 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)
thread_title: Factions and preselection

message: 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)
thread_title:  The conservative Liberal party 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Turnbull v Nelson 

message: Is it noteable or non noteable to mention it in the article? Timeshift (talk) 02:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Liberals themselves using Adam Carr's images 

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

text: Would anyone object adding some sort of mention on Christopher Pyne? Timeshift (talk) 07:33, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Agree that Pyne's opinion, if to be relevant anywhere at all, belongs in his article. Michael talk 09:57, 5 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Hard right 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Liberal/National merger 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  "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)

text: * 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)
replies: text: * "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Agreed, let's ditch the examples for now. --Surturz (talk) 06:37, 15 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Social Conservative" comments 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Local branches of major parties are still almost never noteable enough for wikipedia. Timeshift (talk) 04:47, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of Hunter Liberals 

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

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Proposed merge of List of Liberal Party of Australia leaders by time served 

message: 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)
thread_title:  anti-Lib POV contribution 

message: Heads up... Timeshift (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  First current Lib leader to have no image coming soon...