Talk:Australian Labor Party/Archive 2

Costello a member of Labor?
I wonder who added it in... good it was picked up by an IP, however is it worth mentioning that he worked for the Social Democratic Students Association of Victoria, an affiliate of the Balaclava branch of Australian Young Labor? Timeshift (talk) 08:22, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Well...
Well Costello is actually a liberal (in the true sense, not the wrongly named Liberal Party sense) and the only reason he's working for the Liberal party was because he knew he wouldn't be able to get anywhere if he joined the Labor Party. So yeah, I guess that was some person's idea of a joke saying that he was a member of labour. 19:31, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, the meaning of liberal has changed over time to be truthful. Whilst Costello may have economic views that were once considered liberal these views are definitely conservative in nature now. He was not a member of the Labor party in Australia, but was very close to joining the labor right, he infact chose the Liberals because of his expeirences with the extreme left whilst a student, and did not wish to be in a party that at times can be influenced by the left, instead he chose the conservative path, rather than the middle of the road. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.196.134 (talk) 04:13, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Hartley the first?
''Hartley, NSW was the first parliamentary seat to be won by Labour (as Labor was spelt at the time - see Etymology) the candidate being Joseph Cook. In New South Wales in 1891, the first election contested by Labour candidates, 35 of 141 seats were won by Labour candidates''.

Query: If 35 seats were won by Labour candidates, could any single one of the candidates be said to be "the first"? Wouldn't all their terms have commenced from election day? Maybe Hartley was the first of the 35 seats to be declared. If so, I'm not sure this counts as far as "first Labour seat" records go. -- JackofOz (talk) 23:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've also asked this question at Talk:Electoral district of Hartley (New South Wales). -- JackofOz (talk) 05:38, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

''This entry is just wrong. No idea how to edit this but I suggest you look at this page http://www.parliament.nsw.gov.au/resources/nswelectionsanalysis/1891/Sequence.htm. There were 18 Labour members elected on 17 June 1891, three days before the election was held in Hartley''. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AntonyGreen (talk • contribs) 11:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks very much. I'll just go into the article and edit out the inaccurate statement.  Cheers.  --  JackofOz (talk) 04:20, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Labor or Labour?
Is the Labor party derived from the original British spelling? Profession (talk) 10:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I could only assume so. Labour Party was changed to Labor Party in 1912 by King O'Malley. Timeshift (talk) 11:01, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It was also done to make it easy to distinguish the actual Labor Party from the general labour movement (eg, trade unions), which was a more distinct group back then when trade unions were still fighting for their legitimacy. I've added this point under the etymology section.Wikischolar1983 (talk) 05:18, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

Tree of Knowledge image
Should the image be moved or removed? When it is placed as it is, it sticks on to the end of the last right aligned image and gets placed wherever that is, and as a result the image of the tree on the left is overlapping with some of the article text. Timeshift (talk) 06:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Source for Structure section.
Could we use the rule book as a source for the Structure section? Regards, Ben Aveling 10:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

First party to be in Control in Federally and all states?
The Coalition was in control in Federally and in all states in 1969-70. While it is true that the Coalition is two different parties, to say Labor now is "the first time any single party in Australia has achieved this", without at least a footnote explaining the Coalition did in 1969-70, is at best misleading. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:22, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I honestly can't see that it's at all misleading. People have to read the actual words we write.  Those words include "any single party", which by definition excludes any coalition.  I agree there's value in making reference to the 1969-70 achievement by the coalition, but whether that happens or not, the sentence as it stands is completely accurate.  If it had said "the first time this had occurred in Australia" or something similar, that would definitely be not only misleading, but downright inaccurate.  But it doesn't say that.  --  JackofOz (talk) 13:27, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Brendan Nelson
Under the heading "Labor Party Splits" It mentioned that Brendan Nelson was once I member of the Labor Party. I changed his title to "ex-party leader" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.170.194.44 (talk) 06:23, 16 September 2008 (UTC)


 * All the others in that section defected from Labor while they were elected representatives. I don't think Nelson's membership of Labor in his younger days is sufficiently notable for this article (of course it belongs in the Brendan Nelson article) so I have deleted it, it was quite out of place. Peter Ballard (talk) 11:28, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Update Modern Labor re Rudd
I've not contributed to the talk page before, so forgive me if I've put this in the wrong place.

Could we have an update on Modern Labor, particular in relation to the current Rudd government? Some of the discussion I've seen on private pages including yours timeshift9, on abandoning neoliberalism (pure free market stuff) - which seems to characterise previous labor governments - and returning to Keynesianism (in the context of reactions to the global credit crisis etc) is something that should be on the entry, surely. The quote from 1998 is now quite old. Something more recent?--Daleatwiki (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Has the Rudd government really moved to a Keynesian economic platform? Hardly. Desperate times call for desperate measures, and you certainly cannot say that economic rationalism as the main economic direction has been abandoned by either party. And in reference to my userpage, the Liberal Party does not advocate libertarian pure free markets. Australia has always been somewhat to the economic left, we have what many would consider sufficient regulations to ensure that what has happened in the US does not happen on the same scale as Australia. Timeshift (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I'd have to agree, especially as to the "main direction" of both major parties (and the basic validity of Clive Hamilton's article on the death of social democracy in the labor party). However there does seem to be something of a shift in Rudd, compared to the previous labor prime ministers (eg Keating), particular in relation to market regulation, evidenced in his recent actions and discussion in response to the global crisis (even if you can't pin it down as "a Keynesian platform"). Some sort of clarifying political-economic analysis would be good on the entry. Is he using any particular platform/model/approach or is he being ecclectic or is he buying votes (pensioners, families, home buyers) or is it a bit each way? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Daleatwiki (talk • contribs) 08:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The quote is from Rudd, and I haven't heard anyone say that Rudd has shifted significantly since 1998. I'd say that unless a decent source can be found indicating a change over the last decade, then the Rudd 1998 quote is fine. Peter Ballard (talk) 08:30, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Social democracy isn't dead within Labor, it's still alive and well. It's just that both parties have been economic rationalists/neoliberals to varying but similar degrees since Hawke came to power (as do the 'left' parties in say, the US and UK, it's not an Australian thing) - and note it was Labor who first espoused economic rationalism while in government. You may not know it but Keating and Howard worked together on economic policy closely in the 1980s. Socially, Howard/Libs didn't care for equal LGBT rights (they may claim to but never bothered to do anything for 12 years), Labor fully supports the changes, whilst the Liberals are currently in the process of ripping themselves apart over it. Aboriginal apology. Easing of detention conditions. The list goes on. All parties do not implement just monetarist or keynesian or this or that type of economic policy. The other point is that the modernising economic reform that began in the 1980s is more or less complete. Even the Liberals admit there isn't much left - tax reform the arguable exemption to this. I could call Menzies a socialist, or we can just call Australian governments pragmatic. But this really is just debating the issue - let's move on shall we. Timeshift (talk) 12:21, 20 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Biggest problem here is that while it's an interesting debate it's also completely original research. Wikipedia is meant to report the concurrence of reliable sources on a topic, not advance controversial theories of its own. Off the record, yeah, I'd agree with Ballard that Rudd has actually been remarkably consistent, although there was a significant departure from his usual style for about 6 months either side of his getting elected. Orderinchaos 12:54, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

Photographs of Labor Prime Ministers
Having the photographs of ALP PMs down the side is a great idea, only someone forgot poor Frank Forde, he was PM between Curtin and Chifley, could someone please add him (also perhaps photo of PJK eeds to be change to one of him AS the PM) Thank youu 203.206.241.73 (talk) 10:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Frank Forde was never elected leader of Labor. He was only interim PM. As for PJK, there is no free image available of his time as PM. So no to both. Thanks. Timeshift (talk) 10:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)


 * On reflection, I think 203's point is valid. Forde may not have ever been elected leader of the party, but he was the Prime Minister heading a Labor government, because he was sworn in as PM by the Governor-General.  Interim maybe, but for his short reign he was every bit as much PM as Menzies was.  He was chosen because he was the (unofficial in those days) Deputy Prime Minister but the (official) Deputy Leader of the ALP.  Who else would have been more appropriate to step into the breach upon the death of the incumbent?  I believe his photo deserves a place.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   10:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Democratic Socialism as an ALP ideology
I was the one to originally add this many moons ago, but several months to a year ago when someone removed it, I agreed with them. Though it may still be stipulated in the ALP constitution, there is nothing democratic socialist about the ALP. I think WP:IAR, in a sense, can be invoked in this situation, because if someone wants an understanding of the ALP, it would be very foolish and incorrect to leave a reader with the sense that they are democratic socialists. If someone wants it there for a historical understanding, the article is (relatively) quite indepth in terms of ALP history. Therefore, I reverted the user who re-added democratic socialism. I would appreciate a discussion here, rather than an edit war in the article. Timeshift (talk) 10:54, 26 December 2009 (UTC)
 * While I accept that democratic socialism is not the dominant ideology of the ALP, I wouldn't describe it as a dead ideology in Labor. This essay shows how democratic socialism is relevant to Labor's philosophies and objectives.  Democratic socialism is also an important ideology within the Socialist Left faction, where its support within Labor largely comes from.  It is a philosophy held by many members of the ALP and should be mentioned, even if other philosophies such as social democracy or social liberalism may be more influential. Wcp07 (talk) 01:47, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

DavidHuo edits
Sources for my edit that was falsely attributed to be original research.

http://www.google.com/search?q=ALP+atkinson+R+rating http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=stephen+conroy+internet+censorship http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=NSW+artistic+merit+scrapped

There are hundreds of sources. Ask for any other sources required before you revise my edit. DavidHuo (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * From WP:OR to WP:RS to WP:POV to WP:SOAPBOX and everything inbetween, please do not insist on your changes when multiple people disagree with you. Please familiarise yourself with wikipedia's various policies before attempting to force your incorrect and wrong edits on others. Thankyou. Timeshift (talk) 10:49, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Facts disagree with you in these cases. Google has HUNDREDS OF NEWS STORIES PROVING BEYOND ANY DOUBT THE EDIT ARE FACTS. DavidHuo (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * You've misused your power as an admin to prevent this information from being disclosed. I will ask more senior admins to review the information and the history of your abuse regarding your powers as an admin. DavidHuo (talk) 10:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * By typing what you have typed you are clearly unfamiliar with wikipedia policies. What you are explaining is irrelevant to the issue at hand. I didn't block the page from your abusive edits, an administrator did. And by all means attempt to get it overturned, the admin has a great record, meanwhile i'll go to bed knowing the page can no longer be harmed. Good evening. Timeshift (talk) 11:00, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Firstly, "more senior admins"? It's one thing to threaten me, but at least make it credible/realistic. There is no internal power hierarchy on Wikipedia - if you feel my actions as an admin are particularly detestable, then flick off an email to the Arbitration Committee, who even have the power to desysop me if they thought I was being particularly unreasonable. However, stopping disruptive editing which doesn't meet policy is an unpleasant part of my job description, as with any of the admins here. I'd much rather be writing articles about electoral statistics, dead politicians and the history and development of local government - much more fun.
 * Secondly, do I know you? You imply such in your text above, can't help wondering if you might be related to a user I had a conflict with over a Labor minister's article in November 2008.
 * Thirdly, what you are offering is opinion, not "facts". Furthermore, it couldn't be more remote from the topic in which you have initiated an edit war - firstly, both major parties voted for and supported the recent measure in Parliament, and secondly, I can't find anything in the party's policy platform (which is readable online) which suggests censorship is policy - indeed, they hold power in 8 jurisdictions in Australia and we're only really discussing the actions of one minister each in two of them. Reading Chapter 11, point 15, there would even be a case to be made that Atkinson has operated contra Labor policy - if you're sufficiently motivated, you might even want to take that one up with Labor's federal executive, who would have the power to censure a minister if need be. (And that would be making REAL change, not simply talking about it here.)
 * I strongly suggest reading some of the links Timeshift has provided, as well as WP:SYN, which is the particular one at issue here. Orderinchaos 11:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * 1. Nice try at using an ad hominem against me by implying I am associated with another alleged problem user. You do not know me. I guarantee it.
 * 2. "However, stopping disruptive editing" ...It was never proven to be disrupting. No one improved the information as requested several times - it was completely removed in it's entirety. That is against wikipedia policy. Wikipedia prefers improvement to admins wielding their powers to keep pages "official".
 * 3. I did not begin the edit war, TimeShift9 did by reverting and not improving the descriptions or offering the possibility of doing so, even AFTER the google links were provided. There was NO SUGGESTION of improvement by you and TimeShift9, only reversions and then slapping a page protection on it. The google articles and links proves these are facts. You will look bad if you do not heed them now.
 * 4. "Both major parties...." The NSW part of my edit? Stop there. One party is in government and hence makes the propositions. Whether or not the other one agrees with them is beside the point. The ALP are in government and set up the committee. This is all well documented on the public record. (If you want to challenge this point further I can separately prove this).
 * 5. "I can't find anything in the party's policy platform which suggests censorship is policy"
 * I never made that claim. Again nice try. My exact words were "On .. ..issues....the ALP has fielded several candidates", which is all true. Then I list a few specific examples of Modern Labor.
 * 6. If you do not put the information back in, I will be forced to make a the requested changes and I note now you have not in any way named TimeShift9 for any indiscretions in his reversions or his manner of them. He clearly did not want to improve the article and threw every label at the descriptions.
 * 7. The only thing I will admit to was that the edit was a bit sloppy, and contained no citations (although they are quite easily found). The ALP will wear Atkinson on their brand, amongst others, and I will see that the information is not censored. The article is not {WP:NPOV} because it contains no such information. I expect others particularly admins of wikipedia not to be so biased as to redact this information from the description of the ALP. Now this is nearly settled I may not have to ask for arbitration. I propose that a new description be created based on my original edit. DavidHuo (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Re points 2, 3 and 6 - WP:V, which has the status of a cornerstone policy, clearly states: "This policy requires that a reliable source in the form of an inline citation be supplied for any material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, and for all quotations, or the material may be removed.". WP:RS, which explains what a "reliable source" is, excludes a great deal of the Google-sourced links. WP:SYN says: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources." It is part of No original research, which is another cornerstone policy, and hence forms part of our editing policy. Finally, WP:V states: "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." That means you. Timeshift9 is under no burden, and is indeed obliged by policy to remove unsourced and contentious material. If he was adding the material, the burden would be upon him to justify it.
 * 4 - Basically you are in violation of WP:SYN because you have strung three entirely unrelated incidents together and then tried to claim that they are the same thing and should be on the party's article. The last sentence of your proposed addition is pure opinion with no ability to be sourced. I refer to: "Candidates such as Michael Atkinson, the South Australian ALP's Attorney General have deprived Australian adults who enjoy video games access to games suitable for adults by voting against an R-rating for Australian video games, for approximately one entire decade of their human life., which possibly belongs on an activist blog, but not on an encyclopaedia.
 * 5 - Weaseling around the issue fails to address that the party does not promulgate such an approach. Nor does the "party" select candidates - like most major political parties, Labor is a collection of state parties under one banner and preselections are conducted at a variety of levels in a variety of ways. My particular field is historical politics and I need only point to Jack Lang and Vince Gair and William Holman to demonstrate that things can happen at state level that have nothing to do with the party or its policy. Nor in fact do the Liberals, although they voted when in federal office to restrict discussion of euthanasia online and, in 1999, enacted the first censorship regime. Strangely there's a decided lack of similar activity at that article, which makes me think a lot of the Wikipedia editing nonsense comes from a political rather than ideological source.
 * 7 - Wikipedia works by a consensus process - I hate to sound like a broken record, but once again, cornerstone policy. If you form an express view to work outside it, you're probably on a short and unhappy path to getting blocked for not being able to play well with others. It happens in every ideological sphere in which Wikipedia operates. Our most controversial topics (Eastern Europe, Northern Ireland, Israel v Palestine, various topics re Obama), where ArbCom usually intervenes to restrict entire topics and ban entire classes of editors, usually start with a bunch of editors who think they are entirely right and others are entirely wrong and that they will battle until the "right" version is imposed. I can tell you right now, it won't happen. Orderinchaos 12:06, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 1. Before the page was protected by you (Orderinchaos), I made commentary indicating the discussion page had the citations. Rather than read this at all, or acknowledge it in ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, you ignored it all, reverted the page, then protected it.
 * 2. These are facts. Putting them together is necessitated by them being of the same subject. For example, various ECONOMIC claims are put together similarly in the rest of the article. Further to that, you are obviously biased because you have not removed the 3rd paragraph in Modern Labor section that is without any citation whatsoever (I have provided more evidence in the discussion page than that whole section-there are scores of articles on google precisely describing the subject). Regardless of this, you have not sought to modify the wording AT ALL. You simply removed it. Entirely.
 * 3. I have not edited the Liberal party article because (a) the ALP are IN POWER in 8 DISTRICTS of Australia, like you said. Attention if any is to be paid, will be paid first to a ruling party that is currently implementing policies. That is rational and reasonable. Regardless I can choose whatever article I please to edit and it's of no consequence IN AND OF ITSELF. (b) your 'thoughts' are random and subjective with no basis. (c) You are the weasely type. Google links provided have the facts at your doorstep.
 * 4. As you said earlier the party could censure the politician. They do not. In fact THEY APPOINTED HIM TO THE POSITION OF ATTORNEY GENERAL and have kept him there unmolested for year after year after year. Secondarily, all ALP parties enjoy the same branding and association. They are one and the same. That is like calling a McDonalds franchise, seperate brands and businesses, with no connection between them.
 * 5. You seem to misunderstand the facts presented. They are indisputable facts and there are countless articles, as provided. This is as clear cut a case as you can get. You showed your unprofessionalism and bias the moment you chose to protect the page and sought no improvement to the information provided to the article, all of which is true and factual. This will be my last comment until you propose minor edits. Otherwise I will be proceeding to make a Requested Change. DavidHuo (talk) 12:59, 2 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I've already made my points and spent enough time on this - the only points I'll make are. 1. If it's indisputable, then why is it in dispute? 2. The Liberal Party were in power in about as many places in 1999, and we have a thing called WP:RECENT which addresses this. 3. ALP is not a corporate brand name, it's a democratic organisation - kind of like what Wikipedia itself would be like if it was more structured. 4. I can't edit through my own protection per WP:PROT but I'm obviously happy to consider any sections which are poorly referenced which are in violation of Wikipedia's policies. The last time someone tried to make a point of this at a Liberal politician's article, I practically rewrote the article - it didn't stop them complaining though. 5. I can't think of a single time when a party has appointed any minister, let alone an attorney-general. The caucus appoints ministers, just as they do in the Liberal and National parties (although sometimes in those parties it's the sole discretion of the party leader). 6. As I do not believe you are here to improve the article, but to make a point, I will not be engaging with you further at this venue. I will be submitting this case to a neutral admin to consider blocking you if you persist. Orderinchaos 13:22, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Oh, and I've looked three times on this discussion page and I can't find any citations here - only random links to Google containing random websites which do not satisfy WP:RS. Please take responsibility for your edits. Orderinchaos 13:35, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * On the contrary I made the edits to Improve the article. You have shown no Good Faith as evidenced by your latest attempt to have me "Blocked", in that, you chose to report it to another 'neutral' admin in the context of me being blocked, and NOT in improving the article nor in pointing out the precise points of "Original Research" which you accused me of originally. Obviously having me blocked would be to your liking. I can see that. But it's further evidence of your unprofessional attitude and alarmingly biased decisions, plus your disinterest in proposing which exact parts were original research. Lastly your attempt to say the sources of the search links at the top of this section which I provided is a joke. It really is. This stuff is all over the news in many mainstream publications. Go to Google News and type in Michael Atkinson and the rating. You should be inundated with articles. Nice try. We'll see if you succeed in your attempts to silence me and deny this information. DavidHuo (talk) 14:02, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Guess what DavidHuo? WP:CONSENSUS trumps all. It doesn't matter how much you believe in something or how determined you are, unless people are agreeing with you, you will not, I repeat, will not, be successful. I guarantee you. Learn wikipedia policies and guidelines. Have a lovely day. Timeshift (talk) 22:10, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
 * A "consensus" of 2 people is frankly, a joke. From the Consensus article, which you both have breached yourselves:
 * "Consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together in a civil manner. Developing consensus requires special attention to neutrality and verifiability in an effort to reach a compromise that everyone can agree on."
 * Again, good luck with your position on this. DavidHuo (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Ah, again you show your lack of understanding wiki procedures. We do not need consensus to keep the status quo. You need consensus to implement your disputed edit. Until this happens you will fail. Enjoy. Timeshift (talk) 02:24, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

ALP Headquarters
Is the address for the HQ (161 London Circuit, Canberra) correct? I've tried searching and other then the ACT branch I can only find is the National Secretariat which is located at 19 National Circuit in Barton but not the HQ. If the HQ is still located at 161 London Circuit, then it would be the CPA Australia building. Bidgee (talk) 15:53, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * It wouldn't be a bad faith assumption to assume that you are making the CPA point in an attempt to get people with ALP/anti-CPA tendancies on-side would it... ;) Timeshift (talk) 18:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Really I have no bloody idea on what you're saying! I couldn't give a rats ass of this so called CPA thing you seem to have, I'm talking about the location, of which CPA happen to be in which is also meant to be the location of the ALP HQ. Bidgee (talk) 13:30, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Seems the wink did nothing to indicate sarcasm. What else can CPA stand for? Never mind. Timeshift (talk) 20:53, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Update for info box
Im updating all info boxes for the political parties represented in the Australian House of Representatives. Does anyone object to replacing the current info box with the one presented below? GJGardner (talk) 09:03, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Position on titles, knighthoods etc
It's long been my understanding that the ALP does not support the awarding of honours that come with any sort of title, which is why there was trouble at the mill when Dorothy Tangney, William McKell (admittedly above politics by then), Jack Egerton and some others accepted knighthoods. And why Hawke had the Knights and Dames of the Order of Australia abolished. But I cannot find anything in the ALP platform or constitution that talks about this issue. Maybe I'm looking in the wrong place. Can anyone come to my aid? --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   11:34, 12 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Anyone? --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   08:11, 1 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Due to the number of Catholic Irish in the party, the ALP is pathologically opposed to anything of "English" origin. They illogically include honorific titles - but not other honours - in this category.  I believe the recent adoption of the American spelling of "Labor" is also part of that anti-English sentiment in the party.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 23:48, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Never sure whether to ignore trolls like this, or give a constructive reply containing the truth so that others are not led astray. The name has been spelt the current way since 1912. Hardly recent. And I wonder if our IP poster thinks that Wikipedia's policy of also ignoring honorific titles is due to the dominance of Irish Catholics here? HiLo48 (talk) 02:01, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:John Northcott. That says it became Labor policy in 1943. As far as I'm aware, it's never changed since. So, how come it gets no mention in the party rules and platform? This continues to intrigue me. --  Jack of Oz   [your turn]  08:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As an Air Force biographer, I have one particular source that I use for this syndrome, though I'd be surprised if there aren't other more general ones around -- see pp.30-31 in the following re. Labor's "antipathy" towards imperial honours, and how three of the RAAF's Chiefs of the Air Staff had to wait until the Libs got in to receive the knighthood that generally went with their job:
 * Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 09:53, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Both sides of politics always agreed that Australians should not receive "feudal honours", but there was disagreement about whether knighthoods were included. In Canada, they were, but Australians continued to receive knighthoods under conservative governments. The 1943 ALP congress resolution that you refer to was not binding on the current (Curtin) government.

The crunch came in 1943 when the British government decided to award a knighthood to General Brett for his services as deputy commander of ABDA. MacArthur was upset, and the government moved to give him a knighthood. Blamey was able to convince the government that giving knighthoods to Americans and passing over Australians would hurt morale. So Blamey, Herring and Morshead received knighthoods from a Labor government. In Parliament on 13th September 1945 Mr Chifley said: "The Labor Party is opposed to honours except military decorations." It was still not clear to Blamey at least whether knighthoods were included.(See Long (1962), p. 580)

This was later refined when Arthur Calwell accepted a Papal knighthood.

This partly explains abolition of knighthoods and damehoods by the Hawke government; but Fraser's addition of them was also a reversion to the old form of honours under which the degree of award was based on the social status of the recipient rather than the nature of the deeds performed. The abolition reverted the system back to its more egalitarian form (copied from Canada). Since then, Britain has reformed its awards to match ours and Canada's, although the UK system still includes knighthoods. Hawkeye7 (talk) 10:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Both sides of politics always agreed that Australians should not receive "feudal honours"'? Well, Richard Casey became Baron Casey, and Menzies became Lord Warden of the Cinque Ports...  I don't think that's true.--Jack Upland (talk) 01:18, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Left or centre left?
Is the Labour party leftwing, or centre left? I would have thought that a social democratic party (i.e. communism combined with democracy) whose members still sing the Internationale at conferences has to be left wing rather than centre left. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.15.138 (talk) 23:58, 11 March 2011 (UTC)


 * No. We rely on WP:RS, not peoples' bias. Timeshift (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2011 (UTC)


 * And it's always better to let people draw their own conclusions on a party's position rather than give it a simplistic label. HiLo48 (talk) 02:05, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

If Labor Right is the dominant faction of the Party than why is it listed as center-left?
Neo-liberal social conservatives is about as right as a mainstream party could be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dunnbrian9 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 20 June 2011 (UTC)