Talk:Andrew Brideson

Points that editorialize in some sense, and could stand to be supported by citations or rewritten: The main issue of concern has been addressed, I think. --Michael Snow 06:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Whether he had a particularly low profile
 * Whether the change in portfolios should be considered a demotion or simply a reorganization of the shadow ministry
 * It would be nice to say by whom he was being pressured to step aside
 * The first is fairly obvious to anyone watching Victorian politics, but it is difficult to source. I could anecdotally note the far greater number of press articles about his successor, but I'd be reluctant to remove it altogether for reasons of accuracy. If there is concern about the second, I wouldn't necessarily object to it being reworded, but when someone loses virtually all their portfolios, I'd struggle to find any words to describe it apart from as a demotion. The third was reported when Brideson retired (in about every article I read on the topic), but I'm not sure it was sourced to any particular person. Ambi 07:01, 21 December 2005 (UTC)