Talk:Australian Labor Party

Social-democracy

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

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)

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)

Donations Section Outdated

The donations section is very out of date considering this data is published yearly. 210.50.180.71 (talk) 17:49, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

Labor party drifts away from centre-left position

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)

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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 06:55, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

We actually have an article on John Quiggin. HiLo48 (talk) 07:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

Very interesting. I just had a skim and I'll give it a full read latter. Thanks for that. TarnishedPath^talk 07:10, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

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)

Agree with DirectorDirectorDirector's assessment. (See also: WP:UNDUE, WP:RECENTISM.)--Autospark (talk) 14:06, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Networks, Equity Groups, and Associations.

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)

Populism

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)

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)

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)

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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 00:14, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

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)

The support there is is minimal and is not well supported by a WP:WEIGHT of WP:RS. TarnishedPath^talk 07:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Labor Party Factions Criticism

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)

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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 02:22, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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

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~~, The University of New England, NSW, 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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 07:15, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 08:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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". TarnishedPath^talk 11:41, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

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)

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)

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)

Thanks for your summary. TarnishedPath^talk 07:52, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for these sources. I'm a bit slow to look through sources so have only looked at THAT FIRST SOURCE Manwaring, Rob; Robinson, Geoffrey (2020). What Is 'Labor'€ About Labor State Governments In Australia?. Australian Journal of Politics & History, 66(1), 3–21. doi:10.1111/ajph.12643 so far, which provides some clarity on the landscape being discussed, defining the traditional form of Social Democracy as:

Social democracy is a widely contested ideological tradition.20 Here, we demarcate between “traditional” and “new” social democracy. Following David Bailey, we identify two key elements in “traditional” social democracy: a commitment to Keynesian demand management policy levers; and, linked to this, a redistribution of resources and incomes to the working class.21 “Traditional” social democracy was the product of the long post-war boom, and in the European context, is closely associated with Anthony Crosland’s seminal work.22 In part, “traditional” social democracy was directed against labourism, arguing that unions had fully achieved their goals, especially in the face of (near) full employment. Hence, social democrats directed their attention to new frontiers

As well as the new Neoliberal form of pro-capitalist "Social Democracy" as:

By the 1980s, facing the emergence of neoliberalism, many social democratic and labour parties transitioned to a “new” variant of social democracy.24 In Australia, this was closely linked with the Hawke-Keating era. In essence, in rather stylised terms we might suggest that if labourism sought to regulate and manage capitalism, classical social democracy took capitalism largely for granted, and the third way defined support for capitalism as central

It goes on to say that Labor has increased its focused on the politics of Social Liberalism and has to some degree abandoned its former attempts at criticism of, and competition with Capitalism and the solutions offered by the private market (the essays states state Labor has offered a "limited defense" of privatisation in some areas, whilst encouraging it in others).

As far as my understanding goes Social Democracy is traditionally compatible with progressive social values and social liberalism, but this is however not the same thing as saying that Social Democracy is made up of only progressive values and social liberalism. I would also say traditional Social Democracy is not all that compatible with privatisation and individualist capitalism, particularly not where it creates disparities in wealth and power across classes.

The "third way" wikipedia article is part of a series on Neoliberalism, but has never been seen by traditional socialist groupings as fitting within their rubric. It is by its very definition an ideology that requires one to be of the Capitalist and ruling class to enact or participate in. That's not really Socially Democratic. To quote the page for Social Democracy "The Third Way is an off-shoot of social democracy which aims to fuse economically liberal with social democratic economic policies and center-left social policies" so this division between Social Democracy and the Neoliberal offshoot known as Third Way economics seems to be evidenced in a number of the sources we have. I'll start reading your second source now. I'm a bit slow in this work, but thanks again for providing these sources. 14.2.34.45 (talk) 11:23, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Okay, looking through THAT SECOND SOURCE now; "WATERSHED THE 2022 AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL ELECTION WATERSHED THE 2022 AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL ELECTION" it's obviously focused only on the 2022 election so I'm not finding it as fruitful, but it does suggest Labor had a neoliberal turn at some point (saying on page 59 that "Labor was shifting away from a neoliberal-influenced form of social democracy..."), although the document remains ambiguous as to whether that turn has fully resolved it's self... and in this instance is still describing their populist approach to the 2022 election, rather than the make up of the party its self. It does describe Anthony Albanese multiple times as being a "thin labourists".

It also says on page 191; "We can also see how Albanese brings in other ideological strains and values - nativism and environmentalism, for example - to buttress this 'work-first' agenda. It is striking, too, how in the Australian context the Labor party is unable or unwilling to have a public discussion about it's welfare policies." then in the next paragraph says "If we use Keman's (2017) typology of welfare clusters (social-democratic, unversal welfare and social safety), we could argue that Australias shifted from an atypical 'social-democratic' cluster to a much more minimalist 'safety net' approach. Neither Shorten's technocratic social democracy nor Albanese's thin labourist approach has sought to radically refurbish the fundamentals of Australia's welfare state. The thin labourist approach is instructive in not just what it seeks to valorise, but also what it ignores, downplays and marginalises."

The third source I couldn't find much on other than: "The first completely customisable, open access textbook on Australian politics, Australian Politics and Policy provides a unique, holistic coverage of politics and public topics for use in junior and senior university courses. With an online database of 40 chapters, the book innovatively enables instructors to compile a bespoke edition to suit their teaching needs, or to include individual chapters in course readers. With contributions from Australia's leading politics and public-policy scholars, the textbook includes material on Australian political history and philosophy, key political institutions, Australian political sociology, public policy-making in Australia, and specialised chapters on a range of key policy domains. Each chapter was subject to anonymous and rigorous peer-review to ensure the highest standards. The textbook comes with additional teaching resources including review questions and lecture slides." - by the sounds of it - it might be difficult to know whether I'd be reading a correctly customised version. So might leave that one for now. 14.2.34.45 (talk) 12:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 04:32, 11 May 2024 (UTC)

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

Firstly, you haven't obtained consensus for your changes. Secondly you need to withdraw that ridiculous accusation that I'm vandalizing the article. TarnishedPath^talk 05:15, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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. TarnishedPath^talk 07:42, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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. TarnishedPath^talk 07:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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. TarnishedPath^talk 08:23, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

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

I suggest you rethink your WP:BATTLEGROUND mentality. If you keep up like this you're going to be in for a rough time. TarnishedPath^talk 08:34, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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." TarnishedPath^talk 12:53, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

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. TarnishedPath^talk 12:56, 12 May 2024 (UTC)

>Don't check the active wiki discussion for a day

>Big arguments.

I see.

Labor right is a Social Democrat faction. They go to conferences to yell and say "We should remove the socialist clause and replace it with Soc Dem. It's a whole thing.

This paper goes over it:

- Australian Politics and Policy: Senior Edition 2023 DOI: 10.30722/sup.9781743328859 DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 12:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

They go to conferences to yell and say "We should remove the socialist clause and replace it with Soc Dem. It's a whole thing.

I had a chuckle at that. TarnishedPath^talk 12:54, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Section break

Does anybody have any specific proposals for changes to how the ideology of the subject is described in the article? Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:43, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I think the infobox should be left alone. If there is to be any changes it can be done to the ideology section but would need to be justified by high quality sourcing and so far there has been no consensus formed for that to occur. TarnishedPath^talk 01:20, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I think if we have all this evidence of a Neoliberal turn (as provided by myself and DirectorDirectorDirector), then we have to include that in the article somehow. Likewise, if there's all this evidence for it being Labor's ideology, it should be included in the info box, regardless of other editor's subjective opinions. We're here to reflect the best sources available, and to do so within the bounds of Wikipedia's policies. 14.2.34.45 (talk) 11:15, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

That wasn't my reading of DirectorDirectorDirector's comments, that they favoured the editing that you were undertaking yesterday. For any changes to take place you need to obtain consensus. Thinking you are right is not reason to over-ride everyone else. TarnishedPath^talk 11:22, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The sources they provide back the idea of there having been a neoliberal turn of some description. I just made a reply to them in the previous section about the first source they mentioned, and now am reading over the second one. I think these sources are backing the ones I originally supplied, and am including quotes from them as to provide evidence for that viewpoint. 14.2.34.45 (talk) 11:27, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

You're still not making a convincing argument why you felt it appropriate to continually insert factions into the infobox and ascribe ideologies to them in the infobox. TarnishedPath^talk 11:36, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I haven't ever edited the page. As I said to you earlier, I'm not planning on doing any editing for some time. If you could provide a diff perhaps it would be clearer who made those edits? 14.2.34.45 (talk) 12:21, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

My mistake. TarnishedPath^talk 12:50, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

To clarify I think the sources I presented talk about a Third Way push in the early 2000s which has now ended.

I think Third Way is going to be cashed out by a lot of scholarship as different to Neoliberalism.

I think currently within the Party there is an explicitly Socialist faction that controls a lot of states, with the right faction mostly holding to Social Democrat theory. The Party is also controlled by unions etc.

Social Democrat just feels like a broad enough tradition to include all the things we kinda wanna describe. Other than "Labourism" which I think was rejected prior. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 12:41, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I remember there being a distinct rejection of "Labourism" previously. TarnishedPath^talk 12:52, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The Watershed 2022 report offered by DirectorDirectorDirector as a source describes Albanese as a "thin Labourist". However that source is just about that single 2022 election. 14.2.34.45 (talk) 12:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Per WP:NOR, we can't use what a source about one person who is a Labor politician, regardless how prominent, to say the same thing about Labor. TarnishedPath^talk 12:58, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

"I think Third Way is going to be cashed out by a lot of scholarship as different to Neoliberalism." I don't think that matches our Wikipedia page for Third Way which classes it as part of the series on Neoliberalism, and says "The Third Way is an off-shoot of social democracy which aims to fuse economically liberal with social democratic economic policies and center-left social policies" [emphasis added].

Likewise to quote What Is 'Labor'€ About Labor State Governments In Australia? (Manwaring et al.) "By the 1980s, facing the emergence of neoliberalism, many social democratic and labour parties transitioned to a “new” variant of social democracy.24 In Australia, this was closely linked with the Hawke-Keating era. In essence, in rather stylised terms we might suggest that if labourism sought to regulate and manage capitalism, classical social democracy took capitalism largely for granted, and the third way defined support for capitalism as central."

For me the single sources that we have that even suggests a shift away from that Neoliberalism isn't as compelling as the multiple sources that still describe Labor as contained by a Neoliberal approach (eg. Humphreys, Manwaring, Boris Frankel, Research Note, and Jacobin). 14.2.34.45 (talk) 12:53, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

WP:WINARS. We don't go by what other Wikipedia articles state. We go by reliable sources. TarnishedPath^talk 12:56, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I was discussing DirectorDirectorDirector's statement, not making any suggestions about including it in any articles. 14.2.34.45 (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

An offshoot of Social Democracy, rather than an offshoot of Neoliberalism.

And the reading of the quote above places Third Way as a Response or reaction to the rise of Neo Liberalism not that it is a strain of it.

As said all of the prior contemporary sources provided by myself place Labor as a Social Democratic party. With some pointing to Democratic Socialist and Third Way groups inside it. However the ones pointing to Third way also talk about it's dying nature.

The problem I have with many of the source is that they are not people who focus on the study of Political science or are doing political science but rather come from adjacent field compared to the more mainstream objective telling placing it as a social democratic party.

I think by all telling Social Democrat is as I said broad enough.

I've suggested adding things like "Faction" for the wiki but now I kind of get that It would be WP:UNDUE since like then a reader will think that all these groups have equal power? DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 13:25, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

The problem I have with many of the source is that they are not people who focus on the study of Political science or are doing political science but rather come from adjacent field compared to the more mainstream objective telling placing it as a social democratic party. Elizabeth Humphreys being "the Head of Discipline for the Social and Political Sciences at The University of Technology Sydney." would suggest the field doesn't appreciate the distinction you're trying to draw. I've also pointed out that Social Democracy is a Socialist label, and so having some grasp of Marxism and Socialism would seem vital to writing about these topics.

Likewise, being a Socialist discourse, the claim that the drift is one away from re-distributive politics, towards Capitalist, market, entrepreneurial, or individualist approaches, are all terms associated with (and at times in the sources, explicitly stated as being) Neoliberal.

And the reading of the quote above places Third Way as a Response or reaction to the rise of Neo Liberalism not that it is a strain of it.

The page for third way has various sources that would disagree with this statement. It also has a whopping great picture of Bob Hawke under its "Origins" section. Likewise Neoliberalism mentions thridway in it's origins section, to quote Neoliberal "The neoliberals coalesced around two magazines, The New Republic and the Washington Monthly, and often supported Third Way policies" (third way is also mentioned once in the early history section, although I don't believe that reference is as strong). I've already noted that Third Way is part of a series on Neoliberalism. I know (as per [WP:WINARS]) this pointing at the origins sections of other Wikipedia articles is not article-worthy evidence, but I believe on Wikipedia we have to somewhat trust the determinations of other articles and their talk page discussions as well. 14.2.34.45 (talk) 15:31, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

As far sources backing the claim that Labor has been a party of Neoliberalism so far we have "How Labour Built Neoliberalism" by Elizabeth Humphrys who has a Doctorate of Philosophy at The University of Sydney for a thesis on the contribution of the labour movement to the rise of neoliberalism, and also has a Master of Arts research qualification at The University of Technology Sydney, and is currently the Head of Discipline for the Social and Political Sciences at The University of Technology Sydney.

Selective quotes for that source are available from Jacobin Magazine (a leftwing news outlet).

We have some description of the 1980s production of "theories of a third-way" from The Department of Parliamentary Libraries quarterly; Research Note. Which describes the third-way as being "distinct from welfare socialism in requiring a rather more entrepreneurial, yet hands-off, role for government, rather than it becoming an active player."

We have a Federal Politics article from The Sydney Morning Herald.

We have Professor Boris Frankel of Melbourne Uni's article for The New Left review.

We have Dr Tim Battin, of The University of New England, NSW.

...and we have the Manwaring et al. source which appears to include a group of seemingly qualified academics.

So that's a left wing media source, a right wing media source, two doctorates in related fields, a professor publishing in the premier journal of the left, and another whole group of academics. All discussing this long standing Neoliberalism within Labor.

I'm not sure I see a case to deny what seems to be an overwhelming majority of sources.

To quote WP:CONSENSUS: "In determining consensus, consider the quality of the arguments, the history of how they came about, the objections of those who disagree, and existing policies and guidelines. The quality of an argument is more important than whether it represents a minority or a majority view. The arguments "I just don't like it" and "I just like it" usually carry no weight whatsoever."

I'm not saying this to indicate that I'm about to edit the page. I'd like to leave this matter open for another week and a half at least to let other editors chime in, but still, it's important to keep in mind that the argument for making this change appears to be the stronger and more evidenced case so far.

Can we at least agree the current article has neglected this topic, considering it doesn't appear anywhere in the current article? There's no content or section detailing these particular changes in approach and outlook in the article currently, which seems like an oversight to me. 14.2.34.45 (talk) 13:24, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

You don't get to decide what consensus is because you think you have a convincing argument. This discussion has been going on for a long time. TarnishedPath^talk 13:26, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I never claimed I do. I'm also aware of the length of time this discussion has been going on here, as I've reviewed the talk page archives. 14.2.34.45 (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Rather than stating that you're going to determine that you have consensus after some period of time, start with proposing a specific edit and which reference/s support that edit. TarnishedPath^talk 13:28, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Rather than stating that you're going to determine that you have consensus after some period of time, start with proposing a specific edit and which reference/s support that edit.

That's how I started this section isn't it? Regardless, I'm of the opinion that Labor is a third way neoliberal party, and the info box should align with sources the majority of high quality sourcing. 14.2.34.45 (talk) 14:09, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

To summaries we have:

-"How Labour Built Neoliberalism" by a political economist who is not determining if the party is considered a Neoliberal party. And is also doing a work of political economics which she says as much in her work.

-Links from an opinion piece on Jacobin that is not trying to determine if the party is Social Democrat or not.

-A link that doesn't comment on if Labor is Social Democrat

-Another op ed that doesn't decide or comment if Labor is Social Democrat

-Another person researching political economy publishing in a Marxist Oriented Journal talking about the 1980s Keating Era policy and does not even speak on the Modern ALP at length.

-Tim Battin who is not making the claim that the Labor party is not Social Democrat, focuses on the Pre 2013 party, and also directly calls the ALP a Social Democratic party throughout all his writings.

-Manwaring et al directly placing the ALP as a Social Democrat or just "Labour" party.

Meanwhile we have the following calling Labor a "Social Democrat party":

- 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

- Manwaring et al

- Tim Battin

Following calling Labor a Centre-Left party:

- A New Wave of Social Democracy? Policy Change across the Social Democratic Party Family, 1970s–2010s 10.1017/gov.2020.33 DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I do agree that the factions section needs work. DirectorDirectorDirector (talk) 14:10, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

I'm glad we have some form of agreement. It's nice to see, so thank you. 14.2.34.45 (talk) 15:16, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Sources that agree Labor is Neoliberal/Third way: (regardless of whether they count that as "New" Social Democracy or not)

-"How Labour Built Neoliberalism" by a political economist who is not determining if the party is considered a Neoliberal party. And is also doing a work of political economics which she says as much in her work.

I stated her qualifications which appear to be entirely relevant (And I'm glad we agree that an understanding of Socialism is a relevant era to Social Democracy). The idea that the two of the major leaders of the party (Hawke and Keating) were using neoliberal approaches and indeed played a part in creating Neoliberalism, I think is enough to justify the party having adopted some of that character. Given that they were in power for a number of decades.

-Links from an opinion piece on Jacobin that is not trying to determine if the party is Social Democrat or not. they're commentary on the book from the above source, and if you look again, that Jacobin article ends by say "But however many principles the modern ALP has shown itself willing to shed, it seems likely that Labor’s dual commitments to neoliberalism and being unpopular will be the last to go." - so again is stating explicitly that Labor is committed to Neoliberalism. Likewise the title of the article is "The Australian Labor Party Needs to Ditch Neoliberalism Instead of Doubling Down" again indicating it's a source for the fact that Labor are popularly understood as being a Neoliberal party (at least on the Jacobin left shall we say).

-A link that doesn't comment on if Labor is Social Democrat (Parliamentary Library Source)

It discusses that the Third Way is an entrepreneurial focused approach that involves "hands off" role for government, and was again, produced in the 1980s (eg. the Hawke-Keating period as other sources note).

-Another op ed that doesn't decide or comment if Labor is Social Democrat (Sydney Morning Herald Souce)

I already raised the quote I was discussing when first linking the article. Here it is again: "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." which both mentions Third Way neoliberalism as being its topic, and mentions that Labor was under Hawke and Keating stepping away from Ben Chifley's re-distributive politics (eg. the party had this specific period where their character changed, a fact all these sources confirm, but is overlooked in the current Wikipedia article).

-Another person researching political economy publishing in a Marxist Oriented Journal talking about the 1980s Keating Era policy and does not even speak on the Modern ALP at length.

As I said to TarnishedPath earlier, we're discussing Social Democracy, which is a Socialist approach, and hence academics and journals that are qualified to discuss Socialism and Marxism, and DO SO. Are appropriate. So I'm not sure what your complaining about here. You might want to clarify your point here further.

-Tim Battin who is not making the claim that the Labor party is not Social Democrat, focuses on the Pre 2013 party, and also directly calls the ALP a Social Democratic party throughout all his writings.

Yes, and likewise, the page for Third Way (and its sources) describes it as "a reconceptualization of social democracy". I raise this as Third Way Social Democracy might be a suitable candidate for altering the info box.

-Manwaring et al directly placing the ALP as a Social Democrat or just "Labour" party.

...yes, and Manwaring et al. describe exactly what they mean, saying variously: "By the 1980s, facing the emergence of neoliberalism, many social democratic and labour parties transitioned to a “new” variant of social democracy.24 In Australia, this was closely linked with the Hawke-Keating era. In essence, in rather stylised terms we might suggest that if labourism sought to regulate and manage capitalism, classical social democracy took capitalism largely for granted, and the third way defined support for capitalism as central" and this source also says "..state Labor rarely, if at all, makes strident criticism of capitalism" - so they're explicitly stating this turn within the party's character occurred. I'm not sure what their is to argue about here, it's literally describing the neoliberal turn that took place under "the Hawke-Keating era". Again, there's no mention of this in the current version of the article.

So all these sources are talking about a third way turn, away from re-distributive politics. Most of them are doing so in reference to the Hawke-Keating era. Some of them are talking in general about the more modern era. They are coherent in the quoted sections, and appear to be in forms of consistent agreement with each other.

Is Social Democrat:

Meanwhile we have the following calling Labor a "Social Democrat party"

They don't actually, I don't believe any of them describe Labor as a "Social Democrat party". But benefit of the doubt, let's use hazier terms than what you've offered.

- What Is “Labor” About Labor State Governments In Australia? DOI:10.1111/ajph.12643 (Manwaring source)

Yes, and I've already quoted them as saying they specifically mean Neoliberal and Capitalist centered in their usage when they refer to the current (post-1980s) era. The essay is also specifically about State Labor.

- WATERSHED THE 2022 AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL ELECTION WATERSHED THE 2022 AUSTRALIAN FEDERAL ELECTION DOI: 10.22459/W.2023

Not that I could see. It describes The Greens as advocating "a distinctly green-centered social democracy"... and it describes Alanese's "thin Laborism" as having beating out Shorten's "technocratic social democracy" - but it's saying it was beaten out. Also, that document is focused on a singular election. The one time it suggests labor as being a social democracy party, it says it was part of their populist campaign, rather than a substantive set of actions and policies.... and as discussed elsewhere, third way neoliberalism is also believed by some to be an off shoot of Social Democracy (as per the corresponding Wikipedia articles).

- Manwaring et al

Already covered.

- Tim Battin

As per this link (which is the abstract included at the top of the essay/source as published): "When viewed against its ostensibly successful management of the global economic crisis between 2008 and 2013, growing electoral disenchantment with the Australian Labor Party government during that time defied standard explanations and calls for further analysis. A major reason for the party’s electoral loss in 2013 was arguably popular disappointment with its eschewal of social democratic principles. Notwithstanding some progressive measures initiated between 2008 and 2013, successive Australian Labor Party governments were constrained by neoliberal strictures, even when they chose to implement progressive policies. Whatever other reasons exist for its decline in popularity between 2007 and 2013, the Australian Labor Party’s unwillingness or inability to mark out a clear alternative to neoliberalism was fundamental. In making this case, this article uses the conceptual framework of ‘depoliticisation’, defined as the displacement of policy decisions from the sphere of democratic accountability and public debate, making them matters for regulation by technocratic experts operating according to supposed edicts of the market." seems pretty obvious which way this source swings doesn't it? The actual introduction reads "This article argues, using Australia as a case study, that in retreating from their foundational values of equality, democracy and social solidarity, social democratic parties have undermined the basis for their own popular support."

Following calling Labor a Centre-Left party

I'd prefer to discuss one topic at a time, we can come back to this later.

Also, you guys can reply, and I'll step back for a while to allow other editors to read what's been said and perhaps add their own commentary. I think we should all keep a level head and look at this topic in a balanced and careful fashion, making sure to follow Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. 14.2.34.45 (talk) 15:14, 13 May 2024 (UTC)