Talk:Australian Labor Party

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Social-democracy[edit]

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

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Donations Section Outdated[edit]

The donations section is very out of date considering this data is published yearly. 210.50.180.71 (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Labor party drifts away from centre-left position[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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. TarnishedPathtalk 06:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We actually have an article on John Quiggin. HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Very interesting. I just had a skim and I'll give it a full read latter. Thanks for that. TarnishedPathtalk 07:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
Agree with DirectorDirectorDirector's assessment. (See also: WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM.)--Autospark (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Networks, Equity Groups, and Associations.[edit]

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)[reply]

Populism[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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. TarnishedPathtalk 00:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
The support there is is minimal and is not well supported by a WP:WEIGHT of WP:RS. TarnishedPathtalk 07:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Labor Party Factions Criticism[edit]

I think it's fair to say that there is criticism of the ALP faction system as a whole, and think such criticism is widespread enough to bar mentioning in the article. However I do concede that my edits were primarily based around opinion pieces so therefore would be inappropriate on wikipedia; Would something like this be more appropriate? @TarnishedPath `

There has been criticism of the factional system of the Labor Party with party politicians such as Andrew Leigh, Mark Butler and Robert Ray all having been publicly critical of the Labor party's factional system.

` Sources for this being:

https://theconversation.com/andrew-leigh-calls-out-how-labors-factional-duopoly-is-undermining-the-party-209972 - Andrew Leigh Speech (Article on event) https://www.fabians.org.au/a_more_competitive_labor_party - Andrew Leigh Article with similar sentiment (Piece from Leigh)

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jan/23/mark-butler-factions-are-destroying-labors-capacity-to-campaign - Mark Butler Article

https://www.afr.com/politics/factions-are-the-alps-strength-and-weakness-20060922-jf6r9 - Robert Ray Speech

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/what-are-labor-s-factions-and-who-s-who-in-the-left-and-right-20210210-p5718j.html - A more neutral source on the topic Shcmilly (talk) 14:52, 30 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it needs to be balanced, and include the positives in the factional system as well as the negatives, as outlined by Robert Ray. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:16, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For a comparison look at the other major political party's section on factions at Liberal Party of Australia#Ideology and factions. Although there are sources to be had if one were to looks which are critical of its factions also, they're not used. The answer why they shouldn't be used would be the same here being that they are by and large opinion peices written by people who are not subject matter experts in politics. TarnishedPathtalk 02:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is hard to include these kinds of critiques of the factional system unless we use academic articles that weigh the pros and cons of the system. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 01:30, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking a broad consensus to re-situate the ALP's ideology in accordance to reliable sources.[edit]

In particularly I'm looking at whether these three attributes are still justifiable descriptions in the side bar:

Ideology Social democracy

Political position Centre-left

International affiliation Progressive Alliance

The ALP's "eschewal of social democratic principles" in favour of "edicts of the market" is described in The Economic and Labor Relations Review, a peer reviewed journal from Cambridge, which can be found here. Likewise the progressive news outlet Jacobin details this "pendulum [swing] away from workers and toward capital." and the accompanying "erosion of Labor’s working-class base." in this 2021 article, noting that the population has more than doubled since 1954, yet ALP membership has declined, and quoting various Labor members spruiking neoliberal and individual enterprise solutions to poverty. This Sydney Morning Herald article notes that most Labor MPs are from right wing factions within Labor.

That Jacobin article also mentions Elizabeth Humphrys' 2019 book, "How Labour Built Neoliberalism", which further describes this shift with the ALP. A review of this book was published and can be read in the American Sociological Association's peer reviewed journal here. Whilst this review raises further questions it doesn't criticise the book's findings beyond saying that it's using standard definitions and referencing well known institutions, rather than making a sociological account (which would obviously be the preference of a Sociology journal).

I would put it to editors that the opinion that the ALP has shifted from a Centre-left party of Social Democracy to a Centrist party of Neoliberalism, is not just held by the academics, journals, and reporters listed above, but is also the broad opinion of the Australian public. The ALP's most recent budget (according to this guardian article) is set to ignore the government’s own advisory committee which is saying to raise the base rate of unemployment and associated payments, and is instead going to give tax breaks. Anyone who follows Australian politics has been made entirely familiar with this, the ALP's neoliberal approach.

So I think it's both well sourced, appropriate, and due, that we update their ideology, in line with the sitting MPs they have, the statements they make, the actions they take, what academics say about them, and how the media describes them. Listing the ALP as a "Social Democracy" party in the modern era is somewhat laughable. The articles I'm using as sources are all 4 to 5 years old now, the history of this change in the party goes back to the 1990s and beyond. Feel free to discuss this change further below. 14.2.34.45 (talk) 07:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Almost everything that Jacobin writes is WP:RSOPINION. It's not appropriate to use as a citation when aportioning poltical positions or ideology to political parties. TarnishedPathtalk 07:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I was mostly using them as a "source of sources", and an illustration that the progressive media have noted the shift within the ALP, that shift being away from Social Democracy, and towards neoliberalism. Since starting this effort I've happily noted that other sections of this talk page have already suggested similar changes to the page. So there seems to be somewhat of a pre-existing push in this direction (eg. here and here)... and perhaps there's similar sections in the archives also, although I haven't checked there yet.
Of course, providing reliable sources is crucial to making this type of case, and I want to assure you as a custodian of Wikipedia (and perhaps of this particular topic), that I'm seeking accuracy. That is, to give an earnest report of the ALP's current standing in reliable sources. Preferably, using up to date academic sources to do so. I also want to assure you that I'm not out to make changes to the article any time soon, not for at least two weeks, in order to let some grains of consensus or agreement to form here. You'll note I've never edited this page, so want to respect those who are already here.
Do you perhaps agree with my view that using up to date, academic sources, or at least, works by academics, is preferable? 14.2.34.45 (talk) 07:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You made me chuckle when you suggested I was a custodian of this article. No one WP:OWNs things around here. As per your suggestion of academic sources, you're thinking in the correct direction. That said, I'd go a step further and suggest that any reliable sources should be from academic sources where the author/s are subject matter experts in politics. There are plenty of articles about politics from peer reviewed academic journals where the author/s are subject matter experts in economics or history or something else. It's relatively easy to tell because googling them often brings up their LinkedIn profile or their profile on their university's website or they often have WP pages on them. Tim Battin (the author of the article you provided a link for above), for example according to this, "is a senior lecturer in the School of Humanities at the University of New England, Australia. His teaching areas include political economy; human rights; and political thought. His research interests include the political aspects of neoliberalism". The bit that stands out to me is "political economy". That's code for he teaches Marxism. He's a Marxist. I don't know if I would rely on that reference by itself. TarnishedPathtalk 08:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmmm, the ANU has him as a visiting fellow with a background in The "School of Politics & International Relations" [1], The New Matilda lists him as a "senior lecturer in the discipline of political and international studies" [2] likewise the source you gave states his areas of expertise as "Political and International Studies". At any rate, I would think that some awareness of Marxism and Socialism in general would be important for writing about whether the ALP are Social Democrats. Since my previous comment I have reviewed the talk archives and found this topic (and even this particular source) to have been brought up quite often. 14.2.34.45 (talk) 10:37, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, he is indeed listed as a "senior lecturer in the discipline of political and international studies". Given the position he's coming from though I'd want more sources than just his, if he indeed was going to make a claim that Labor was something other than "Centre-Left" or "Social Democratic" (I'll get to that further on). I just downloaded the article through the Wikimedia library (one of the benefits of having an account) and in the abstract I found "A major reason for the party’s electoral loss in 2013 was arguably popular disappointment with its eschewal of social democratic principles". I think a lot of commentators would strongly disagree, but I can see where he's coming from as someone who I think is most likely a Marxist.
My reading of the argument more fully, and I skipped a lot, is that his central argument is that the social democratic policies of the ALP are constrained by neoliberalism because neoliberalism has become hegemonic. This is not the best source for trying to make an argument that we should change the infobox to something other than "Centre-Left" and "Social Democratic". TarnishedPathtalk 11:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I also cited Elizabeth Humphrys' 2019 book, "How Labour Built Neoliberalism" - and that Jacobin article which quotes from the book a couple of times. The book is also searchable to a limited degree on books.google.com here.
The Australian Council of Trade Unions actually has an essay available for download that expresses similar sentiments to what Humphry's does; That Labor had it's own path to neoliberal "Third Way" economics, the ACTU essay states variously that; "The Third Way is controversial because some in the Australian Labor Party (ALP) argue, with some justification, that the ALP invented it." and "The ALP leadership, past and present, has argued that the policies that the Hawke-Keating Labor Government of 1983-96 provided the basis of Tony Blair’s New Labour platform in the UK in 1997." and "Keating and others in Australian Labor circles argue that Australia provided Blair with the Third Way".
The official journal of The Department of the Parliamentary Library aka the journal known as 'Research Note' likewise noted in it's second quarterly for 2001; "From the mid 1990s, attempts to redefine Labor Party values in terms of democratic socialism have produced theories of a 'third way'. Third Way socialism looks to government to provide funds directly to consumers who then choose between public and private service providers. It is distinct from welfare socialism in requiring a rather more entrepreneurial, yet hands-off, role for government, rather than it becoming an active player."
The Sydney Morning Herald in 2008 also notes this shift (the same one Humphry's, Battin, The Jacobin, and the ACTU are noting), by stating: "Many people laid claim to being the progenitors of the Third Way, including Bob Hawke and Paul Keating, who did their best to disavow the nation-building, redistributive legacy of Ben Chifley's postwar Labor government and the more independent foreign policy of Gough Whitlam." a quote that aptly charts the shift as being away from Chifley's Socially Democratic Nation Building policies, and a response to events surrounding Gough Whitlam. The article goes on to cite Dr Jon Cruddas (who was in Australia giving lectures at the time) who asks "Did we lose some of the essence of a Labour project?". Cruddas was a teacher of Labour History at Oxford from 2010 to 2012.
The New Left Review, the premier journal for the New Left characterizes the Neoliberal shift in much the same way, with Melbourne Uni's own Professor Boris Frankel stating in his essay "Beyond Labourism and Socialism: How the Australian Labor Party Developed the Model of 'New Labour'" that "As with the Spanish Socialist and New Zealand Labour governments, it would be relatively easy to list all the right-wing pro-market policies implemented by the alp administrations of Bob Hawke (1983–91) and Paul Keating (1992–96). One of the oldest labour movement parties in the world, the alp has had a hegemonic role within the Australian working class for over a hundred years. But like other Labour parties, there has been much dispute over whether the alp has ever been socialist and whether the Hawke and Keating governments could be accused of betraying traditions and socialist objectives they did not uphold in the first place." this sentiment, which is overwhelming in the sources is also backed by Labor having dropped their participation in the Socialist International (as noted in the current version of the Wikipedia article).
The 2010 book Performance Management in the Public Sector by Wouter van Dooren, Geert Bouckaert, John Halligan, classifies the shift from Hawke and Keating as one towards Neoliberal third way politics, grouping them with Neoliberals like Tony Blair, Bill Clinton, and Gerhard Schroder on page 44, by saying "New Labour propagated the replacement of ideology by pragmatism. As such, EBP..." [Tony Blair's claim to be practicing "Evidence Based Policies"] "...seemed to fit in well into Third Way politics of UK prime minister Tony Blair and US president Clinton, but also of Bob Hawke and Paul keating in Australia, Jean Chretien in Canada, and Gerhard Schroder's 'Neue mitte' in Germany.".
Peter Burnham calls this "The Politics of Depoliticisation" in his journal article "New Labour and the Politics of Depoliticisation" - which I'm citing only as a matter of interest for the talk page, as it's focused on UK politics not Australian. That said this shift from traditional Socially Democratic politics of internal Nation Building to external and globalized Neoliberal Economic politics is considered a world wide phenomena among the Establishment Left. So I'm sticking to the line that updating the article accordingly is due and not all that controversial.
At the very least it seems to be a fairly mainstream conception of events/politics with wide spread sourcing available. 14.2.34.45 (talk) 14:35, 9 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Will go through these sources.
From a face reading most do seem mostly opinionated or have some skin in the game to want to label Labor as moving in such a way.
I'm worried about the analysis you're giving your comment on the Socialist International. They dropped their membership during the whole hubub about SI admitting and keeping non democratic parties within their grouping. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay read through the presented sources and I don't feel as though the sources provided give a clear academic approach to if the party is centre-left or still a proponent of "social democracy".
A few new contemporary sources on this matter that put Labour as "Social Democracy", "Democratic socialist", or "Centre-Left" are:
- What Is “Labor” About Labor State Governments In Australia? DOI:10.1111/ajph.12643
- WATERSHED THE 2022 AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL ELECTION WATERSHED THE 2022 AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL ELECTION DOI: 10.22459/W.2023
- Australian Politics and Policy: Senior Edition 2023 DOI: 10.30722/sup.9781743328859
Even sources looking at the pre 2010s International Labour movement seem to put forward that Third Way is dying, and the Labour movement is moving leftwards. It does call out that the Third Way skeleton is still there though in the form of New Labour in the UK and Hawke–Keating:
- A New Wave of Social Democracy? Policy Change across the Social Democratic Party Family, 1970s–2010s 10.1017/gov.2020.33 DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 02:52, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your summary. TarnishedPathtalk 07:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think the only open proponent of third way politics in Labor was Latham. That was a fair while ago now. That said if there was to be reliable sourcing on the ideology/political positions of the factions that was to be put into the article that we arrived at consensus on, I don't think the best place to put it is the infobox. Infoboxes aren't the place to be cramming everything including the kitchen sink. There is a faction section. TarnishedPathtalk 04:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop vandalizing this page. You are saying that Labor isn't Centrist. It is, at current. I put in Factions as it is less controversial, and you keep reverting the edit. Please stop enforcing your invalid opinion on others. I would be bias if it was allowed (talk) 03:54, 12 May 2024 (UTC) sock strike[reply]
Firstly, you haven't obtained consensus for your changes. Secondly you need to withdraw that ridiculous accusation that I'm vandalizing the article. TarnishedPathtalk 05:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Get consensus on Labor Right being Centre-left them I would be bias if it was allowed (talk) 05:17, 12 May 2024 (UTC) sock strike[reply]
The pre-existing version is the consensus version. Change away from that requires consensus. Did you miss the bit in the code where it states <!-- It is important to seek and gain broad consensus on the article talk page before changing this -->? That was placed there by other editors for strong reason. TarnishedPathtalk 07:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask: where is this status quo? Putting factions in for a party which has an openly Centrist faction isn't outrageous. It's perfectly valid. Go get a broad consensus before reverting it I would be bias if it was allowed (talk) 07:47, 12 May 2024 (UTC) sock strike[reply]
This has been discussed many, many times. I suggest you look through the talk archives. You can't reverse the onus like you're trying. It isn't going to work and it's a disruptive tactic to attempt it. If you want to make the changes you want you're going to have to get quite a number of editors to agree with you because quite a number of editors in the past has said that the ideology/political position fields of the infobox should not change unless there is sourcing presented to justify it and consensus formed for the change. TarnishedPathtalk 07:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Labor Right is Centrist. End of story. If you like consensus then go get one reverting it instead I would be bias if it was allowed (talk) 07:57, 12 May 2024 (UTC) sock strike[reply]
Thinking that you're right is not good reason for running roughshod over long-standing consensus. That bit <!-- It is important to seek and gain broad consensus on the article talk page before changing this --> was placed in the infobox because the ideology/political position fields are contentious. When something is contentious you shouldn't barge in from a position of doing whatever you want because you think that you are right. TarnishedPathtalk 08:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
How about you give up this time and come back with a consensus? I don't see why Labor doesn't have a major Centrist faction, mind you you are the main opposition to Labor being called Centrist. Are you a faithful voter of them? I would be bias if it was allowed (talk) 08:27, 12 May 2024 (UTC) sock strike[reply]
I suggest you rethink your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. If you keep up like this you're going to be in for a rough time. TarnishedPathtalk 08:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't want to make this a personal conflict. Simply put, Labor has Centrist factions. I don't want an edit war, just get a consensus against it yourself. Labor Right is Centrist. Labor Left is aligned towards Labor's actual policy. That's as simple as it gets. Need I say more? I would be bias if it was allowed (talk) 11:59, 12 May 2024 (UTC) sock strike[reply]
Oh, and I don't think your a bad person either. No hard feelings mate, greetings from Melbourne too I would be bias if it was allowed (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2024 (UTC) sock strike[reply]
You should take notice of the administrator who reverted you in the edit at Special:Diff/1223465596 and the edit comment that they directed at you. I'll quote it for you "Obtain a consensus on this article talk page. You need to follow WP:BRD. You made a bold edit, you were reverted with good cause, it is then your obligation to start a thread on the talk page and gain consensus. Further edit warring regarding this matter will result in a block." TarnishedPathtalk 12:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ps, I'm not against talking about the faction's ideology/political position in the factions section which is at Australian Labor Party#Ideology and factions as long as any added material is backed up by high quality reliable sourcing. I'd suggest bringing suggestions to this talk page first as I said before this stuff is contentious. However the infobox isn't the place for stuff about factions and their ideology/political positions. TarnishedPathtalk 12:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]