Talk:Australian Labor Party/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Political position

The “Australian Labor Party” has two main factions. The first faction is “Labor Left”, which is a Centre-Left to Left-Wing Faction; whereas, the second faction is “Labor Right”, which is Centre to Centre-Left. “Labor Right” is a Third-way and Social Liberal faction; whereas, “Labor Left” is a Progressive, Social Democratic and Democratic Socialist faction! SmashingThreePlates (talk) 04:40, 13 July 2021 (UTC)

Heading text

The graph known as "Membership of the Australian Labor Party (1948-Present)" may be misleading due to variation on the dates recorded which could paint a false image on the subject matter. Could somebody explain how it is in this way and how it could be improved if possible.

Bobbitybob69 (talk) 07:48, 14 September 2021 (UTC)

Remove membership arrow/indicator?

The source is ambiguous. Should the green/red arrow next to the figure be removed? Thanks, thorpewilliam (talk) 07:25, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Ideology

I think the ideology of ALP should be defined only as 'social democracy' in infobox. It should be applied the same as the Social Democratic Party of Germany article. (Social liberalism is basically an ideology on the right rather than social democracy, and democratic socialism is basically an ideology on the left rather than social democracy.) --Storm598 (talk) 01:36, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with this change. Major social-democratic parties tend to have two factions that tend to lean more to the left or more to the center, this situation applies here since I believe it's already stated somewhere in the text, the Labor Left and Labor Right. --Vacant0 (talk) 00:12, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

I also strongly support the change as suggested by Storm598.--Autospark (talk) 14:47, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-Protected Edit Request

Labor have won 77 seats in the 2022 election, but this page only shows 76. Can that be updated? StrongPencil (talk) 03:44, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

First Labor 1891?

When was the first "branch" Labor party founded?

I can't find this in wiki or in Google.

Archives3 has a comment. [1]

It seems QLD claim to be first after a meeting at the Barcaldine tree, maybe in March 1891. The Manifesto of the Queensland Labour Party is dated 9 September 1892.

It seems NSW were first, since they had candidates in an election that started on 17 June 1891. https://www.nswlabor.org.au/our_history says "Formed in 1890" … no date cited.

MBG02 (talk) 17:45, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The APH website has a document called The History and Organisation of the Australian Labor Part by the Commonwealth Parliamentary Library that states that Labor parties were formed in Qld, NSW, Victoria, SA and Tasmania in 1890. Dyrenfurth and Bongiorno's book states it isn't clear, but mentions two events in 1891, the Tree for Qld, and Balmain for NSW. The Sydney Trades and Labor Council formed the NSW party in March 1891, according to that book. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:44, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Was Chris Watson a supporter or opponent of federation?

This article says that he supported federation:

"However, the first Labour leader and Prime Minister Chris Watson was a supporter of federation."

However, the bio article of Chris Watson says he opposed federation:

"He [Watson] and most party members opposed Federation on the grounds that the proposed constitution was undemocratic."

Which is it? I dunno. But we can't have contradictory statements about the same man in different articles. Mr Serjeant Buzfuz (talk) 00:50, 9 March 2023 (UTC)

On Labor Ideology

Can we have “Social Democracy” as the ideology and then have it say “Factions”, Democratic Socialism and Third Way because those are factions that exist in labor-left and labor-right respectively MrFluffster (talk) 09:29, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

If that is what the academic consensus is, and we have reliable sources to cite that say that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:32, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Sent MrFluffster (talk) 09:39, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I thought you wanted me to talk to you. MrFluffster (talk) 03:54, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/labor-shoppies-still-powerful-senator/dm6tnjq1t (About the Third Way faction in Labor-Right)

It’s also widely accepted on the Labor Right page and Labor Left page that Third Way and Democratic Socialism are part of the faction’s ideologies MrFluffster (talk) 03:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't see "third way", "third-way" or even the word "third" in that article. I certainly wouldn't associate third way politics with the SDA, perhaps others from the Labor Right, but definitely not the SDA. If you're going to apply the term to Labor Right as a whole I think you're going to need to find WP:RS for it, per @Peacemaker67 advice above. TarnishedPath^talk 04:12, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

It isn't mentioned in that article. Any change of this sort will require examination of the academic consensus among political scientists about Labor. We wouldn't accept Labor as a source on itself for somethign contentious, as it isn't independent of the subject. See WP:RS for more information. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:59, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

From memory Mark Latham referred to his politics as being third way when he was in the ALP and we all know how that ended up. I agree. TarnishedPath^talk 07:31, 14 August 2023 (UTC)

Faction section

The faction section contains a number of unsourced statements which are highly contentious. I suggest if anyone wants any of those statements to remain that they find WP:RS within a reasonable period of time. In the meantime I've added citations needed tags. TarnishedPath^talk 11:58, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

Good move. HiLo48 (talk) 23:47, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

The section specifying Bill Shorten as leader of Labor Right and Anthony Albanese as leader of Labor Left is just untrue. There is no singular "leader" of either faction, which makes providing a contradicting source to this difficult.

The article here provides some more detail on the convenors of the factions.

I'd suggest deleting the following:

Preselections are usually conducted along factional lines, although sometimes a non-factional candidate will be given preferential treatment (this happened with Cheryl Kernot in 1998 and again with Peter Garrett in 2004).[citation needed] Deals between the factions to divide up the safe seats between them often take place.[citation needed] Preselections, particularly for safe Labor seats, can sometimes be strongly contested.[citation needed] A particularly fierce preselection sometimes gives rise to accusations of branch stacking (signing up large numbers of nominal party members to vote in preselection ballots), personation, multiple voting and, on occasions, fraudulent electoral enrolment.[citation needed] Trade unions were in the past accused of giving inflated membership figures to increase their influence over preselections, but party rules changes have stamped out this practice.[citation needed] Preselection results are sometimes challenged, and the National Executive is sometimes called on to arbitrate these disputes.[citation needed]

and the specification that Anthony Albanese and Bill Shorten are factional leaders. Proscrabblemaster (talk) 04:58, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I've also removed the mention that Labor members may align themselves with particular factions and pay an additional fee - This is, from my research, completely false. It appears the ALP has sub-groups you can choose to pay extra for, but these are for particular interest groups (First Nations, Republican, LGBT) not for factional alignments. Proscrabblemaster (talk) 05:03, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

@Proscrabblemaster, I tagged those areas quite some time ago and I was meaning to come back to it after a month, but it slipped my mind. Thankyou. Contentious claims like those really do need to be appropriate sourced. TarnishedPath^talk 05:34, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe the extra fee is required for specific groups either when in some states. For example LGBT and First nations you don't have to pay. The whole section needs drastic overhaul in my view. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

I've just removed a section of text which was supported by Jacobin. The specific Jacobin source was an opinion piece, which Jacobin articles often are so it had to go. If anyone wants to restore that section of text I suggest they'll need to find references which aren't opinion pieces, academic sources would be fantastic. TarnishedPath^talk 16:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey so the source I added for the section previous to that is an academic source that backs up most of the information. The section might still need edits if you look over it. Thought it'd be best to undo your edit and then edit it so that line has a connection to who wrote it etc. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 17:24, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Actually after re reading the source I'll just write something new. The framing in that para is all over the place. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 17:37, 1 January 2024 (UTC)

Political position and ideology formatting

Thought I'd open up a broad discussion about these sections.

First to begin with I'm wondering if anyone would be against bringing in the date conventions that you see on pages such as MPLA and Labor Party (South Korea). Being that if the party has existed for an extended period of time and the position has changed that this can be shown in this section. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 15:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

@DirectorDirectorDirector, I'm not against such a change per se but I'd be against it if it was based on an individual editors ideas, i.e. original research. If such a change does happen it should be properly cited, preferably from academic sources where the authors are subject matter experts. TarnishedPath^talk 23:40, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Hey yall it seems like most are okay with the general idea of adding in the dating convention so I'll add it soon (By most of yall I mean the watchers that didn't comment too).

On another note It would appear some are trying to move to have "Labourism" added to the ideology. There are sources used in the Wikipedia which would back this up. Is anyone against adding this change? TheGhostGum (talk) 14:31, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I strongly oppose that change – “labourism” isn’t technically a political ideology in itself, at best it is a typical component of social democracy. Therefore listing it is misleading and tautological.— Autospark (talk) 16:28, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

I'll look into it more, but I'm finding a lot of papers that explicitly separate Social Democracy and Labourism. Some New Left Scholars do state Labourism is a form of Social Democracy however it wouldn't make it's listing tautological per say at worst if we take only the New Left Literature it would be similar to other pages that list Democratic Socialism and Socialism, at best if we only take the non-New Left Scholars we would be highlighting a very key diversity in the Labour movement compared to Social democracy movements. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 01:02, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

As I wrote before I'm not against dating as long as there is appropriate citation, preferably from academic sources where the authors are subject matter experts. If we're going to have any change from the WP:QUO it has to be in a positive direction, otherwise it should remain as is. I agree with Autospark about the Labourism bit. TarnishedPath^talk 00:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the appropriate citation piece, I'm currently find some sources that are more contemporary. Compared to using the same old few things published in the 80s about Labor in the 40s. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 01:05, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

With User:Autospark, I also strongly oppose "labourism", a mere synonym of "social democracy". This party is a broad centre-left one, but it is correctly described with "social democracy" and "centre-left" in the infobox. I would not add anything else there. --Checco (talk) 14:31, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Checco if its a synonym why does the literature explicitly separate them and say they are distinct? TheGhostGum (talk) 03:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

If you are talking about the labour movement, that is not a political ideology... --Checco (talk) 12:34, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

@Checco no I directly mean the term "Labourism" as used across the literature on the topic as an independent term from social democracy. TheGhostGum (talk) 14:41, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Look, I don't think we need to argue over this. I think we've already established there is not consensuses to use the term in the infbox? Do people agree? TarnishedPath^talk 14:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, there is no consensus on adding "labourism", which, btw, redirects to Labour movement in Wikipedia. --Checco (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

A redirection to another Wikipedia page wouldn't constitute evidence of a term not being popularly used. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, there is no consensus for adding it to the infobox. But it does seem like it should be listed somewhere in the existing article for those wanting to read more. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 03:35, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Full agreement with TarnishedPath, "labourism" does not belong in the Infobox.-- Autospark (talk) 16:33, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Social-democracy

Is ALP really a social-democratic party today? Isn't it New Labor? 95.24.66.215 (talk) 14:41, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

New Labor is a very UK thing, and didn't really spill over here. A lot of the things involved in New Labor also never happened over here for example the removal of the socialist objective etc etc. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 00:01, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed, the "Social Democracy" label should probably be removed and replaced with "Neolibera", I'm glad to see there's pre-existing support for this change already on the talk page. 14.2.34.45 (talk) 07:16, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Populism

Labor’s attempting to ram through its deportation legislation this week undoubtedly demonstrates its veer towards the populist right. It’s indeed not something a centre-left and social democratic party would try and bring into law anyway.

https://the-riotact.com/labor-weakened-by-silly-urgent-move-over-its-deportation-bill/757034

https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/28/labor-deportation-bill-blacklist-entire-countries-citizens-visas-australia-immigration

https://amp.theguardian.com/australia-news/2024/mar/27/labors-deportation-bill-fails-to-pass-senate-in-almighty-backfire-as-coalition-and-greens-team-up

https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/03/28/labor-deportation-bill-youtube-india-abc-albanese-solar-panels/

https://www.sbs.com.au/news/podcast-episode/labors-controversial-deportation-bill-blocked-and-referred-to-an-inquiry/xc7aoi5cl Geelongite (talk) 04:21, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Rather than prefacing all those links with your own irrelevant personal opinion, could you perhaps highlight which of those links tell us that Labor is now a populist right party, and where they say that? HiLo48 (talk) 05:08, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree with HiLo48.I don't think these news articles show an academic move of labelling the ALP as a Populist Right party. TheGhostGum (talk) 20:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Ditto. This is not a forum for discussion of the ALP. If you have suggested changes to the article, please provide the high quality reliable sources that state that Labor is veering towards the populist right. I don't see any above. Thanks, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:54, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

As per everyone else, we don't do original research here. When it comes to the political ideology of political parties we generally prefer sources from academic sources who are subject matter experts in politics. TarnishedPath^talk 00:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad to see there is already pre-existing support for re-situating the ALP's ideology in line with their current politics. 14.2.34.45 (talk) 07:19, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

The support there is is minimal and is not well supported by a WP:WEIGHT of WP:RS. TarnishedPath^talk 07:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Donations Section Outdated

The donations section is very out of date considering this data is published yearly. 210.50.180.71 (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Labor party drifts away from centre-left position

The ALP is no longer a centre-left party as should be obvious to anyone who follows politics closely and understands the spectrum. The page needs to be updated to reflect the true nature of the party as it stands. Please see the article below as a reference…

https://www.crikey.com.au/2023/06/01/labor-centre-right-three-party-system-albanese/ Solar1979 (talk) 04:31, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

That article is undeniably an opinion piece. That doesn't make it unusable, but we would need several more sources close to agreeing with it before we could change our article. Funnily enough, I saw another article the other day from the Murdoch stable telling us how Labor was becoming more socialist every day, ad that the Libs were now a center right party. HiLo48 (talk) 06:24, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Given that the author John Quiggin is detailed by Crikey as "a professor in economics at the University of Queensland and is prominent both as a research economist and as a commentator on Australian economic policy", I'd say that the opinion does not have any weight as Quiggin is clearly not a subject matter expert. Does that change if there are more opinions from non subject matter experts? It's hard to see how it does. TarnishedPath^talk 06:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

We actually have an article on John Quiggin. HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Very interesting. I just had a skim and I'll give it a full read latter. Thanks for that. TarnishedPath^talk 07:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

This is clearly an opinion article, written by the same author of other such opinion articles as "‘Progressive’ Labor is dead" and "Labor and its imaginary friends". I'd be hard press to accept this to change the existing "Centre-Left" position anymore than the loads of opinion pieces from economists saying Labor is becoming more socialist because of their return to Nationalising Industry. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 07:37, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Agree with DirectorDirectorDirector's assessment. (See also: WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM.)--Autospark (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Networks, Equity Groups, and Associations.

The "Network" section needs significant work and over hall. Maybe even the section on Young Labor and Womens network too.

As it stands there are two distinct "Kinds" of groups within the party structurally. One is Equity based groupings that vary in power such as Australian Young labor, Labor Womens Action Network, Rainbow labor etc. These groupings at the state and national level have more structural power and are based on immutable traits you have like "First nations" or "LGBT+".

Then there are kinda "policy networks" that are called "Associations" in some states that are basically just organising committees around a kind of policy or interest like "Labor environmental action network" etc. These usually have little to no actual structural power.

I feel like reading wise this part is massively out of date and says labor is "is beginning to formally recognise single interest groups" Despite groups like Rainbow Labor existing since pre 2002, and some things like Australian Young Labor of course existing from the start of the movement. An overall that separates these distinct ideas within the structure of the party would be good. Also it would probably fix the weird nature of listing the women's Action network on it's own (Since it has so much power) then randomly including it again in the networks? DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 05:20, 23 March 2024 (UTC)