Talk:Liberalism in Australia/Archive 1

Archive 1

(person who doesn't understand the word "liberalism")

I would NEVER consider the Australian Democrats (or any of its schisms) in any way reflective of liberalism.

The problem is that classical liberalism is quite different from the present day notion of liberalism.

Links to the "Liberalism in Australia" page come from classical liberalism pages.

I think this calls for a disambiguation page.

Anyone now how to implement such?

Andrew

I do not see any reason for disambiguation. To what? This article gives an outline of diverse variants of liberalism in its international meaning. Electionworld 06:24, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

I think the Australian Democrat history is appropriate with Don Chipp et al having set up the Party. The Greg Barns material is interesting but probably more appropriate to a biography of Greg. --Victor 08:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)--Victor 08:33, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Liberal Leaders

Should some small-l liberal Liberal Party leaders be added in this section - for example, Rupert Hamer or Marshall Perron or would this be POV???

I think in any case Steele Hall and Robin Millhouse could be added as they were leaders of the Liberal Movement which definetly was a small-l liberal party. Teiresias84 09:46, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Point of clarification

"The Liberals and Democrats have shown much more affection for the Senate than has Labor." Can anybody cite reference for this? Timeshift 06:02, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Paleoliberal

"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)

Quality control.

The opening paragaph should lead into the article, not read as 'This article is about', that's more akin to a high school essay. Also, it should be clearly noted in the opening paragraph that the Liberal Party is not a liberal party, per se, as it doesn't do the whole personal freedom, freedom of thought, et cetera, et cetera, like a true liberal party would. 211.30.71.59 10:11, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

What on Earth is the Country/National Party doing here?

There have never been liberals, not in a social sense, not in an economic sense. Slac speak up! 06:05, 15 May 2007 (UTC)

Given that they have been in a federal policy union for over a decade, it is hard to differentiate them from the Liberal Party of Australia. There is also a third definition of liberalism you are missing, admittedly one used only in Australia, that equates to what "conservative" means in many places. It would of course be more constructive to add the ALP (and a few minor leftist parties) to the timeline and make it a timeline of all Australian political parties. 220.253.15.107 11:34, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

"People's Party"

Who or what is the People's Party and exactly how is it that they merged with the Commonwealth Liberal Party to become the People's Liberal Party in 1911? Timeshift 08:49, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

google search... I'm not sure. My main point of concern is if it's true, the lack of this information in the CLP article, and the CLP being the CLP in the 1913 and 1914 articles... Timeshift 08:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't find much. This government site on Alfred Deakin mentions in passing he was in the CLP/PLP from 1909 to 1916 http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/fastfacts.asp?pmSelectName=3 Peter Ballard 12:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

[1] offers a little about the PLP. [2] even mentions another sure one to add, an "Australian Liberal Party". If you're looking for a fairly authoritative source as to the creation and existence of the PLP, try the Library of Australia. [3] is a booklet they produced.220.253.62.51 (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Less material is available on the People's Party, [4] is a minor reference (and mentions an "Economy Party"). [5] gives marginally more. The People's Party appears to have been similar to the Country Party of the time, though based in the east rather than the west. 220.253.62.51 (talk) 10:37, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Sounds to me as though it was just a state branch of the Fusion. They went by various different names, as, incidentally, did state branches of the ALP at this stage. Slac speak up! 11:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

We've had a big problem for a long time in that we keep associating the early federal parties (especially the Fusion, which as I understand was pretty much a federal-only grouping) with state parties that, really, had bugger all to do with them. The Economy Party was, as far as I understand, a Victorian conservative party that was active around the time of World War I. I'm not sure about the People's Party, as it isn't one I've come across, but I'm sure it's a similar case - there's a whole variety of others from other states. We really didn't develop a nationally consistent party system until around the development of the Liberal Party in the 40s, and that's excluding the Lib-Nat mergers that took place in several states and need to be covered. We really need to thoroughly demarcate these early state parties, get articles on them, and sort out which was where.

I know of one potential source for this - a thesis someone wrote on the early Victorian parties, which I've been meaning to convince the National Library to get my hands on. I'm sure there's material around for other states, and it'd be a good project to get out of the way. Rebecca (talk) 09:02, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Timeline

FYI, "demerges" is not a word. "Split" is the term used in the circles. Also, "succeed" does not mean to leave. "Secede" as in, "The thirteen rebel colonies SECEDED from the Empire" is correct. I've made corrections to this effect. EvilFuzzyDoom (talk) 03:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

"Contemporary Australian Liberalism

This section needs a complete overhaul, as it does not tackle the current situation of liberalism in Aus Politics, and refers to Liberal politicians as being members of cabinet. (I Personally believe there are no 'true' liberalists currently in the Liberal Party, especially not Christopher Pyne!) If anyone has the time and knowledge to contribute to this section, please do so. TheCheez au (talk) 10:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

So, you've identified a problem in the article. Don't wait for anyone else, use your initiative, be bold and solve it yourself! --Shirt58 (talk) 11:41, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Are we talking about liberal or Liberal Party here?

It's unfortunate that the party on the conservative side of politics in Australia calls itself Liberal. Makes it very difficult to use the word liberal as an adjective in its normal sense to describe anything happening in Australian politics. I think it would be best if the word "liberal" was completely avoided in discussion of Australian politics, apart from in the name of the party.

This whole article is a mish-mash of facts about the word "liberal" and Liberal Party facts, which tend to contradict one another. Totally confused as to what it's really about. A disaster as far as I'm concerned.

Who in their right mind would describe John Howard as liberal? If it hadn't been the name of the party that opposed the ALP, therefore being the one he joined, I'm sure he would never go near the word to describe himself. HiLo48 (talk) 23:44, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(Late) agreed. This article is a mess. The Liberal Party is in no way "liberal". 124.169.51.160 (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

This article is a joke and needs to be rewritten from scratch by someone with common sense, the only thing liberal about the Liberal party in Australia is economic liberalism, and that's not liberalism at all! --124.187.12.233 (talk) 10:14, 21 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Liberalism in Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080706171441/http://home.vicnet.net.au/~victorp/21st_century/johnhoward.htm to http://home.vicnet.net.au/~victorp/21st_century/johnhoward.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.pm.gov.au/News/Speeches/speech1554.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:04, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

None of these things on this page have anything to do with liberalism.

Even the page on economic liberalism on Wikipedia lists economic liberalism under capitalism. This page is totally bananas. The vast majority of this page describes the Liberal Party of Australia that in no sense is a "classical liberal party..." Nor does it have anything to do with liberalism in Australia in general... if such a thing even exists... This page reads as an advertisement for the Liberal Party of Australia which has nothing to do with "liberalism in Australia" in any general sense which is what this article is supposed to be about. On top of this, this article is party to the usual nonsense of confusing socialism with communism which is a significant issue with regards to point of view in claiming all socialism as communism where both major parties have had a strong anti-communist agenda since day dot the Marxist-communist agenda of right wing capitalists is complete and utter nonsense that has been debunked several times over since the rise of McCarthyism. --120.154.135.156 (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

This article is still a mess

Reading back through archives on the talk page, it appears that this article has been a mess for close to 15 years, and that every attempt to fix it has just made it more of a mess. I will list the key problems here for editing purposes and tracking purposes, because redoing this will take a while.

The key problems are:

• Lack of explanation of the evolution of different schools of liberal thought in Australia and their political manifestations today
• Conflation of liberalism and the Liberal Party in a number of places and a number of ways
• Mixed and confusing use of the term "small-l-liberal" to mean both classical liberals and centrist Liberal Party members, self referential linking of "small-l-liberal" back to the same page; no definition or explanation of the competing definitions are ever given for this term.
• Use of political figures' own definitions for liberalism taken uncritically and not explained, contrasted, compared or reconciled with each other.
• Extensive assertions without citations, other assertions with dubious or unreliably sourced citations. Citation-needed marks have been on this article for a decade in some cases without being answered.

The first problem identified above underpins the other problems. The words "liberal", "liberalism" and "small-l-liberal" have all have multiple meanings in Australia. Without analysis of how different interpretations of the western liberal tradition have evolved, are presented and manifest in Australia, the article will remain a complete mess. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.219.134.58 (talk) 03:16, 3 February 2020 (UTC)