Talk:Australian Country Party (2004)

Recent Edits to Australian_Country_Party_(2004)
I am writing re the recent reversals to amendments to the Wiki page for the Party.

I note that all edits were cited and the change of Leadership was official with Party formal internal procedures. There is no ability to Cite the internal changes of Leadership of the party.

The party has completely changed its direction and political positioning to a grassroots democracy ideology and we should have also deleted the 2 nationalism ones as well.

We are no longer a rural-focused party and this change occurred in July 2017.

Our Position is definitely Broad-Centre, and again this was cited to our recent media release that clearly demonstrated this.

The opening paragraph, that has the first sentence utilised in the google search box had the two sentences just reversed so the current details of the party sho not the 15 year old history that also provides the impression of the old rural focus of the party.

I respectfully request that all the recent edits are reinstated, plus the deletion of the Australian Nationalism and Economic Nationalism as these are no longer reflected in the new direction of the party again cited to the media release that announced all the new details and direction of the party.

The way the Wiki page now reads, as it has been returned to the old content is related to the old Party under the old leadership and direction, Ideology and political positioning.

I look forward to your review of the recent media release and our website to see we have definitely changed who we are and where we are heading.

Media Release Website

we have also removed all our policies as we develop new ones and will be updating our core values and position statements in conjunction with feedback from people around the country in our new FaceBook Policy Discussion Group.

I look forward to a quick return to the current and correct information for the Party as edited earlier this week.

--Glennstapo (talk) 14:53, 18 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for starting a discussion on the ACP's ideology. Having a look over the party's position statements, there is clear justification for Australian nationalism, economic nationalism and social conservatism to be listed as ideologies within the infobox. I recognise the fact that the ACP no longer sees itself as an agrarian party, solely concentrating on rural and regional Australia.

These ideologies are reflected through the following party policies:
 * Australian nationalism – "Upholding institutional and political independence against the forces of Internationalism; We shall be reviewing all agreements to which Australia is a signatory, and if necessary, renegotiate them for Australia’s benefit", "Immediate reduction of immigration to 20,000 per year for the purpose of getting our people back to work. Controlled, selective immigration can restart when the official unemployment rate is at 2% or below", "Our defence forces are anaemic, due to not only the political correctness quest of some military officers but also the neglect of R&D and funding by successive governments. With China leasing a base in Vanuatu and other ports throughout Southeast Asia, we must remain vigilant"


 * Economic nationalism – "As part of revamping Australian industry, creating new jobs and revitalising our economy, an Australian Infrastructure Fund would allow the management and optimisation of our natural resources for the benefit of industry."


 * Social conservatism – "The Australian Country Party will oppose any legislation to continue or initiate any new programs which teach gender ideology or portray sexual intimacy in schools. Sexual education should only extend to the biological functions and the process of reproduction from conception to birth as part of the science curriculum and be age appropriate and respectful of the social and cultural values of families in the school community."

Given these ideologies, it would be fair to retain "right-wing" as the political position of the party. --LeoC12 (talk) 03:51, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply and identification to specific statements and ideologies that no longer reflect our Party.

I note as previously stated that we have removed all policies pending grassroots input through our FB Group Policy discussion.

After reviewing the position statements again it has been decided to also remove them as many also did not reflect the new direction and ideology of the Party as you have pointed out. They have now been removed from our website.

I thank you for your valid input and look forward to your support of the Party Wiki page reflecting where we are heading.

Regards,

Glenn Glennstapo (talk) 04:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)

Untitled
I've reverted Matturn's revert, as the original was fairly badly written. For starters, it had obvious spelling mistakes, poor grammar, and a myriad of one-sentence paragraphs which didn't flow together at all. The entire article pushes the agenda of claiming that the party is a political threat, while providing virtually no evidence that the party is being taken seriously by any of the mainstream parties, and all the sources concern the media launch when the party was registered, as opposed to anything that's happened since.

The article also makes claims that are downright preposterous, such as claiming that it is likely to win the support of Dianne Hadden and Carolyn Hirsh. It also claims that they are likely to win a balance of power when the only person who appears to be seriously suggesting this is Russell Bate, and when only the party's supporters are predicting that they have much chance of even winning a seat. The current version, on the other hand, has had a rewrite for grammar and retains most of the information without the self-promotional hyperbole. Ambi 10:20, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply
I disagree with this assessment (of course). There may have been spelling mistakes in there. I will accept that. But what on earth was wrong with the grammar?

What is wrong with one sentance paragraphs? Some things only need one sentance to say, and grouping them with completely unlinked statements can only lead to confusion over their possible connections. I recall some grammar rule about one paragraph, one idea... (not that I care much for presecriptive grammar, but you seem to).

Many Wikipedia articles have these, placing them in a usually misnamed "trivia" section. That said, if you'd just rewritten the piece changing this part of the structure, I wouldn't have minded.

My writing this with the POV that they *might* have some success is just as much "pushing the agenda" as you "pushing the agenda" that they certainly won't have.

The opinions of the major parties is irrelevent - did any party think One Nation would out poll both the Nats and Libs in Queensland in 1998? Besides, even if they did think they were a threat, do you think they'd boost their chances by advertising the fact? Note that soon after the launch Bob Katter suggested created a similar, but federal, party. He obviously took notice.

The main support for their possible success is the roaring success of Russell Savage and Craig Ingram, and to a lesser extent, Susan Davies, Bob Katter and Tony Windsor. The Libs and Nats role in the Telstra sale is likely to also boost "conservative" candidates that aren't memebers of these parties.

The reason it doesn't cover much of what happens since is because I couldn't find much. Your replacement article doesn't add anything in this area, so I don't really understand the criticism.

I at no time said that it would gain the support of the two ex-Labor Independant MLCs. I did point out that many of the leaders of the Alliance had Labor connections, and that Hadden's current policies and positioning fit perfectly with the Alliance. You may also note, that the local press in parts of Hirsch's electorate was printing a lot of letters from Alliance supporters (and detracters). But perhaps because all this doesn't support your "agenda", you deleted it. Presenting other evidence supporting the contention that the ex-ALP MLCs will never join the Alliance would have been more in the Wikipedia NPOV spirit.

For this to be self-promotional, I would have to be a part of the party. I'm not - I probably won't even give them a high preference, in part because they're a pseudo-ALP front, which is perhaps why I was making that clear. (And which you've chosen to hide through deletion, perhaps as part of an "agenda" to promote them to conservative voters - the Alliance would love that. Oooh, this agenda accusing is fun. I'm glad I don't need much evidence.)

As for them issuing statements that they're similar to "SA First" and the "City Country Alliance", I can find no evidence for this. *I* compared them to these two parties, becuase, IMO, they have strong similarities. Especially to the Alliance in it's present state - they were single state embyrotic parties whose first election made-or-broke them. Broke in both cases, yet another sign that I'm not some one-eyed Alliance accolyte.

Your claim that they have "nowhere near the support" of these is also contraversial, in that the City Country Alliance had very limited popular support, and SA First had a similar number of members. If you count the lower house support of the affiliated Savage and Ingram (both were at the party's launch - stronger than "in principal support") as likely upper house votes in 2006, they've already got significant (though not a quota's worth of) electoral backing in the upper house at least.

IMO it is quite feasible that they will win at least one seat in the Victorian upper house in 2006. They've certainly got better odds than Family First had at the 2004 federal election.

matturn 14:44, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * You're missing the point. Your opinion isn't relevant. Mine isn't either, for that matter. They could well win a seat, but so far there's been no evidence to suggest it along with their own claims. There's been nothing from Laurie Oakes, Annabel Crabb, Antony Green, or Michelle Grattan, or any of the myriad of other political hacks in the press gallery even bothering to mention them, let alone viewing them as a political force, apart from in the stories referring to their launch. This is why the article is at is; it doesn't suggest that they definitely won't win a seat, but there's not much evidence of a groundswell of support for them at this time. If you provide some evidence that anyone outside the party is taking them seriously and I'll be happy to see it changed.


 * Along the same lines, I'm not suggesting that the article claim that Hadden or Hirsh have anything against the alliance - it's just preposterous (not to mention original research) to suggest that their joining is a likely alternative. Savage and Ingram are a world away from Hirsh and Hadden, both of whom are relatively urban MPs just disillusioned with the ALP, letters to the editor or not. This is why no one else - not even the party - is suggesting that there's any possibility of their joining. It's something that just doesn't warrant discussion in the article.


 * The comparison to SA First and the City-Country Alliance is again original research, as no one else is suggesting it that I can see, which would make it ineligible for inclusion in Wikipedia. The only real similarity between the parties anyway is that they're state-based - none of the three share an ideology and all had different backgrounds. Ambi 15:34, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * My opinion isn't relevent, but yours is? You believe that certain bits of information I gleaned from the internet and the press aren't original research, but others are? Not everything had a little (source) link, which they should have. If you read the info linked to instead of just deleting the links for a yet unstated reason, you would realise this.


 * You really should delete the whole article if you want to be consistant. You clearly have a POV (as have we all), but against Wikipedia practice you're forcing it on the whole article, and deleting anything that might support conflicting ones.


 * Again, I never suggested Hadden and Hirsh would join the party - I was just presenting evidence that supported that contention. A more NPOV way of dealing with your disagreement with a *possible interpretation* of that evidence would have been to add something like "others point out that both these women aren't independant or urban fringe/rural at all. Also, both supported the full sale of Telstra, and hate the commercial use of forests". As far as I know this statement is untrue, but it seems to broadly represent your opinion.


 * All the political writers in your list spend the vast bulk of their time looking at *federal* issues. Of course they're not going to be too bothered with a minor, single state party. Especially one that's only targeting around of quarter of Victorians. I don't think Laurie Oakes has ever mentioned Russell Savage, but that doesn't stop him winning his seat comfortably year after year.


 * You seem to respect Age writers, so why not respect the words of *state* politics reporter Mathew Murphy, and at least leave the links to his articles intact?


 * "If you provide some evidence that anyone outside the party is taking them seriously and I'll be happy to see it changed." All the press and broadcast attention around their launch was a fairly good sign I thought. The Stateline story in particular. Also the flurry of letters in the Yarra Valley, and perhaps the mention of a successfull meeting in Horsham. But given your deletion policy, all these stories must have been by non-people like me.


 * Of course, if Liberals for Forests are anything to go by, you can get a sizable vote without anyone knowing you exist beyond a ballot paper. They were just a few thousand votes away from having Fielding's seat.


 * As for the only connection between the minor parties mention being that they're state based, well that and their first election being a major test is all that's needed to justify the statement I made. (unsigned, made by Matturn


 * Actually, I don't have much of an opinion on the Alliance. I'm a fan of Savage and Ingram, but I'm wary of having an article on a new party that makes lots of bold claims with very little evidence apart from the statements of the party's leaders. I have read the articles; the problem is that they're all reporting on the launch, taking the line of "hmm. new party. bold claims. interesting", and that none of them have any neutral parties claiming that they're likely to even win a seat, let alone getting the balance of power. I'd be happy to see any evidence since then of this, and comments by state political reporters will do just nicely, but I've yet to see that either.


 * Again, with original research, you're missing the point. NPOV has nothing to do with this issue - the problem with Hadden and Hirsh is that you're the only one making the contention in the first place, and editing the article to imply some connection based on this; it is thus original research. And as for the state-based parties - the first election is bound to be a test for any new political party, so the only thing they have in common is being state-based; a link hardly strong enough to warrant mentioning here. Ambi 03:26, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * What contention? That mentioning them is relevent? They're indepedent, all the other independent members of the parliament are involved, and the party aims to be a collection of independents. Mentioning their connections to the Alliance or lack thereof is relevent. I could have done it better than the original statement, but that should lead to rewriting rather than deletion. If "the first election is bound to be a test for any new political party" is true, then surely mentioning at least some of the remotely substancial new political parties of the last decade is relevent. Their success or lack of it is valuable in predicting the fate of this party. matturn 07:41, 29 October 2005 (UTC)


 * There are four independents in the parliament, and two of them are involved with this party. The other two have absolutely nothing to do with it, and no one; no journalist, no member of the party, no anyone, apart from you, is suggesting any links between them. It is thus no original research; please read that policy. Finally, how is looking at the experience of the other parties valuable in predicting how this one will fare when it has nothing in common with any of the others? Ambi 07:58, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

stopped the Australian Greens from gaining the balance of power?
This assertion is not backed up by any analysis I can find. The distributions from these two regions are available at http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/state2006resultNorthernVictoriaRegion.html and http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/state2006resultWesternVictoriaRegion.html do not support the assertion that the failure of the Greens to win the 5th quota was due to the existence, or preferencing of the CA. This should be referenced or removed.--Spamburgler 10:32, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


 * The only thing that stopped the Greens Marcus Ward winning in Western Vic region was Labor directing preferences to the DLP ahead of the Greens. When the ALP was eliminated for the count (they came third) their prefences elected the DLP (who  also had very small primary vote) over the Greens.  Country Alliance preferences were irrelevant, their vote was low and they went out of the count very early.  The claim is either wishful thinking or an attempt to rewrite history. If it does not have a genuine reference then it must be removed.  Peter Campbell 12:56, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Tonkatonka has placed another unsourced reference to the CA preferences "critical" role in geeting the DLP over the line. Again, this statement does notappear to be supported by the VEC flow-of-preferences data referenced above, and should be removed unless that editor shows that these official data are erroneous.--Spamburgler 13:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually if you look at the preference flows, you will see at line 137 that CA preferences put the DLP ahead of Gordon Alderton from Family First. Labor had preferenced the DLP ahead of the Greens, and then ahead of the conservative parties. Given the Labor's 3rd candidates preferences went to DLP ahead of the Greens, keeping the DLP in the race was absolutely crucial to determining whether that fifth seat went to the DLP or the Greens. Had CA not given the DLP it's preferences, we would now have four Greens in the upper house. The situation with the Northern Victorian Region is less clear but there is a view that CA's preferences were important there in giving Labor the fifth seat, but it's less clear.

I therefore think it is valid to keep the reference to CA's preferences being critical to getting the DLP over the line. Tonkatonka 10:41, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Improving the article post-2010 election
I have attempt to clean and bring this page up to standard by inserting links for the 2010 and 2006 state election results. I have also removed some of the Greens rivally talk in the results in the 2010 because it seemed to be out of context in the results section. It possibly belongs in a seperate subsection, but there were no cites for the much of it. If people feel it belongs in there include a link please. --Bsfairman (talk) 08:13, 8 January 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on Australian Country Party (2004). 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/20131004084900/http://www.countryalliance.org:80/index.php/our-party/about-us.html to http://www.countryalliance.org/index.php/our-party/about-us.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070501101355/http://www.vec.vic.gov.au:80/parties.html to http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/parties.html#current
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004084900/http://www.countryalliance.org:80/index.php/our-party/about-us.html to http://www.countryalliance.org/index.php/our-party/about-us.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151007020205/http://www.countryalliance.org/index.php/in-the-news/latest-news-website/207-we-ve-changed-our-name.html to http://www.countryalliance.org/index.php/in-the-news/latest-news-website/207-we-ve-changed-our-name.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081121124816/http://www.countryalliance.org/policies.htm to http://www.countryalliance.org/policies.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 21:49, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Australian Country Party (2004). 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:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.vec.vic.gov.au/parties.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151007043310/http://www.countryalliance.org/index.php/in-the-news/latest-news-website/197-weekly-times-story-on-ca-katter-merger.html to http://www.countryalliance.org/index.php/in-the-news/latest-news-website/197-weekly-times-story-on-ca-katter-merger.html

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

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 03:11, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Required updates to ensure Wiki Page Reflects the truth of who the Australian Country Party is from December 2018
Below are reverted edits that I believe should be reintroduced based on the factual information included and cited. I have provided the coded text, including cites to make the job easier for whoever takes on the fixing of our Page to bring it up to date and reflect who we are in 2019.

I note that I have a conflict of Interest as the New Federal Chairman of the Party and so I require someone to review and confirm the facts being presented, so they can be updated on the page.

Please note the additions to the Cate Speaks reference placed by one of your editors. There are notes there after I communicated directly with Cate.

1. Ideology - Grassroots Democracy, Australian Nationalism, Economic Nationalism

We do not believe that our patriotic positions are actually - Australian Nationalism and Economic Nationalism, but a broad patriotic position that is embraced by the majority of Australians of all nationality backgrounds and definitely not right wing.

We are definitely not social conservative.


 * ideology = Grassroots democracy Australian nationalism Economic nationalism

2. Political Position - Broad-Center


 * position = broad-center

3. Opening Paragraph

We are not a Victorian only Based Party and further, we are not "dedicated solely to the interests of regional communities", and was created to provide an alternative to the National Party in country Victoria. That Statement is historic and the Parties National Focus Commenced mid-2018.

The Suggested opening statements for the page are:

The Australian Country Party (ACP) is a Federaly Registered political party, headquartered and also registered in the Australian state of Victoria. It has previously been named the Country Alliance and the Australian Country Alliance.

The party is focused on grassroots national issues, describing itself as a "Truly Democratic, Grass Roots Political Party for Australia", and provides an alternative to the Australian Labor Party, Liberal Party of Australia and National Party of Australia as a voice for all Australians.

The Australian Country Party has commenced its national expansion with the application for registration in the Northern Territory.

In closing, I believe there should be some reflection to the complete change of Ideology, Positioning and direction the Party has embarked on in line with the Party Media Release widely distributed on January 15. A link to the media release is here -

Thank you to whoever fixes our Page.

Regards, Glenn O'Rourke

Glennstapo (talk) 12:09, 6 February 2019 (UTC)


 * My quick assessment of these proposed edits and their references:
 * broad-center is not a wikipage, and I can't find anything to link it to more than Centrism
 * Catespeaks appears to be a blog, maybe a well-known author in Victoria, but a blog, and it appears to be linked primarily to pick up the comment by Glenn O'Rourke anyway, so fails WP:SELFPUB
 * The Weekly Times article is hard to see for free, but once I did, it is a reference for the party changing names again, Glenn O'Rourke is federal chairman, and quotes from Glenn about the party (not editorial opinions).
 * Influencing.com is a PR company hired by the party to spread its message. WP:SELFPUB with contractor support
 * The long list of references contains duplicate entries for nearly every one, so it's really only just over half that length
 * The only independent references are the Victorian and NT electoral bodies. There appears to be no known independent coverage of the party since the Victorian election, and user:Glennstapo tells us that anything published before that would no longer be valid since he took over as leader. Even the Weekly Times article has a photo of the previous leader.
 * --Scott Davis Talk 13:38, 6 February 2019 (UTC)