Talk:Democratic Labor Party (Australia, 1955)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Policy

I think the material under policy is more correctly an individual statement even if it reflects policy, clarification anyone --Matt 12:18, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Two articles?

Since the DLP has now become a significant party in Victoria by winning a seat in the Leg Council, I think this article ought to be split in two - Democratic Labor Party (1955-78) and Democratic Labor Party, to distinguish the old party from the current one, which is not legally the same party. This pattern has been established with (oh! irony!) the old and new Communist Party of Australia. The Democratic Labor Party article then needs material about the current party's organisation, leadership, policies etc. Adam 23:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. PMA 01:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. --Matt 04:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism

This is obviously a far-right fringe party. Surely a criticism section needs to be included. If citations can be found it should be a high priority. - Mike Beckham 05:45, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Why? The article makes clear where they stand on their politics. Let people make up their own minds. Rebecca 08:36, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of "criticism" sections. Just note what other people say about them, which will include both criticism and praise. That's the approach taken at Family First Party and Australian Greens. (Usual disclaimer: I'm a member of the former). Rocksong 10:11, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Senate

While I don't think they're a prospect anywhere, it's very interesting to note they're running in WA and SA (and possibly other states) for the first time since the 1970s. Any media sources on this and is it worth including? Orderinchaos 21:53, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Footnote

"In Australia, we need to be told the truth about HIV-AIDS, and it is predominantly a homosexual disease, that is not something that can be disputed."[1]

The link in footnote 1 doesn't even contain this quote. --Joveblue 11:17, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

That's true. I have reworded the sentence to reflect the cited source. Euryalus 23:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No mention of Santa?

Surely there needs to be some mention of Santamaria in this. Perhaps whoever edits this to include the party's 2010 activities could rectify this. 203.173.9.204 (talk) 10:15, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

I used Ross Fitzgerald's book on the NCC, DLP and the fifties ALP split for my recent edit. However, there's one slight problem- the book came out in 2003, and Santamaria himself died in 1998. Given the current reported weakness of the NCC, there needs to be an in-depth treatment of the DLP, NCC and affiliates over the last decade. I have been unable to find such a detailed analysis of their movement and that period of its development. Calibanu (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)User Calibanu

What WP colour is the DLP?

I noticed at Port Adelaide state by-election, 2012 that someone has changed the colour of the DLP in results coding from teal to yellow, so now the colour in the candidates and results tables differ. What is/should the DLP colour be? Timeshift (talk) 03:39, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This was because the DLP does use a sort of sandy colour on their website and advertising, so on that front I think the change is fine. I'm less sure about the historical DLP - anyone know what colour they used? When I originally made the templates I picked teal pretty much at random, so if there is an actual colour we should change it to that (provided it won't cause confusion with other parties; we may need to adjust the shading, etc.). Frickeg (talk) 09:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)
Yellow could cause some confusion with the Sex Party, which would be awks, so if we keep it we'd need to be careful about our shades. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:25, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Democratic Labour Party (Australia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:15, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

DLP name change

Do we know why it made the change from "Labor" to "Labour"? Headhitter (talk) 06:22, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

So they could have a slogan that they were "putting the U back in Labour"! Although the historical DLP actually used the Labour spelling quite a lot too. Frickeg (talk) 08:21, 8 September 2013 (UTC)

I stated in an edit yesterday that it was Occam's Razor as it was obvious that the DLP was distinguishing itself in name to the ALP with the spelling of labour.

Canley responded by saying: "Occam's Razor is not a valid justification for an unreferenced presumption"

That does not mean I was wrong about it and Canley himself found a source that clearly states that very reason for the spelling of labour. Question is why wasn't it found before I made that edit.122.108.156.100 (talk) 22:57, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Democratic Labour Party (Australia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:23, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Democratic Labour Party (Australia). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:18, 8 September 2017 (UTC)

Accuracy

DLP Vice President (talk) 04:40, 2 April 2022 (UTC)The statement in the article, "In 1978, a majority of Democratic Labor Party members voted to re-affiliate with the Australian Labor Party, but the Victorian branch of the DLP voted against that move and maintained itself as an independent party", is inaccurate. The Victorian DLP state conference in 1978 voted 110-100 votes to disband the party. I know - I was there. If you want a reference to the event, I give“The DLP bows out”, "The Age", 21/3/1978. The vote was not to re-affiliate with the ALP, a legal impossibility, but to disband. Other states had already disbanded or fallen apart. Several DLP-aligned unions did later re-affiliate with the AlP, and several DLP officers did later join the ALP, but the party as a whole did not. There is no constitutional provision in ALP rules for another party to affiliate with it. The DLP members who lost the vote formed a new DLP, and all sorts of stories appeared in years later about the state conference not being valid, but none of these issues was raised at the time. The vote to disband on the executive was 16-11 (Minutes of DLP Central Executive meeting held at 256 Victoria Street, Richmond, at 7.30 pm on FRIDAY, 3rd MARCH, 1978 - available at the Victorian State Library). I cannot rule out the possibility that some of those executive members who voted to disband changed their minds and joined the new party but I don't know of any. I see that the reference for the claim is a parliamentary library report, so I will be taking the issue up there as well. I am happy to give my name, but Wikipedia won't let me. However, you can probably work it out from the user name I have chosen.

I have now located the parliamentary library report which is given as the source for the article’s statement, "In 1978, a majority of Democratic Labor Party members voted to re-affiliate with the Australian Labor Party, but the Victorian branch of the DLP voted against that move and maintained itself as an independent party"
The report itself says something quite different:
“In 1978, DLP branches in all states, including Victoria, voted to dissolve. In Victoria, the vote passed by a few votes and 14 voters were found to be concurrently members of other political parties. Three-quarters of the Victorian branch’s executive rejected the vote and continued the party in that state.” In other words, it does not mention any DLP members voting to re-affiliate with the ALP, and it says all branches including Victoria voted to dissolve. So, the claim in the Wikipedia article has no source at all.
Furthermore, the claims made in the parliamentary library report also have no source. DLP branches outside Victoria had collapsed before 1978. This can be seen from a perusal of the notes I took at the 1976 DLP federal conference, the last ever held. It is also obvious from the fact that the DLP did not contest either the Senate or the House of Representatives election in 1977 in any state other than Victoria. The statement that “14 voters were found to be concurrently members of other political parties” was not made at the time. In fact, decades passed before I even heard it. The vote on the Central Executive in favour of disbanding was 16 to 11. The president as chair of the meeting did not have a deliberative vote but had supported the recommendation of the officers at the officers’ meeting prior to the executive meeting, so at least 17 executive members supported disbanding, while only 11 did not. For the 11 who did not to become three quarters would have required the majority of those who voted to disband to change their minds, yet I know of no one who did. ChrisDesmond (talk) 23:02, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
DLP Dissolution
I have replaced, "In 1978, a majority of Democratic Labor Party members voted to re-affiliate with the Australian Labor Party, but the Victorian branch of the DLP voted against that move and maintained itself as an independent party" with “By 1978, DLP branches in all states, other than Victoria had ceased to operate. In 1978, the Victorian branch voted to dissolve. The vote to dissolve was carried by 110 votes to 100. Some members of the party refused to accept the vote and formed a new DLP, which they claimed was a continuation of the original DLP.”
I have done this for two reasons: the original is inaccurate, and it is not supported by the source given, which is itself not supported by any source at all, as explained in my posts under Accuracy. I have emailed the parliamentary librarian, with documentary evidence, asking her to withdraw the paper and correct it before republication. ChrisDesmond (talk) 04:44, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

Which DLP 1980 & 1983?

According to this article, the old DLP folded in 1978, and the new DLP was founded in 1984. Who was the Democratic Labor Party who existed in between those years, and fielded candidates in the Victorian senate seats in the 1980 and 1983 elections? See frex these results from the parliamentry library. Do these years refer to federal registration? —Felix the Cassowary 18:47, 12 September 2010 (UTC) www.infowars.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.67.123 (talk) 00:58, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

IIUC this is a bit of a mess from an era when parties weren't formally registered so there wasn't an impartial umpire to settle it. Often parties can get messy when federal and state branches don't all jump together and ISTR a few more recent cases where splits have gone to court. Here it seems the federal party voted to dissolve itself but the Victorian state executive overruled the state dissolution ballot on irregularities and carried on at both levels then became the nucleus of a new federal party. The present day party claims continuity to 1955 because of this but you can find occasional old DLP activists disputing its right to the mantle. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:25, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I know this is a late answer, but I have only just been made aware of this article. The federal party did not vote to dissolve itself but to advise state branches to wait a little longer in 1976. I know because I was a delegate to that federal conference. The Victorian party voted to dissolve in 1978. I know because I was a delegate to that state conference. The state executive never overruled the state conference. I know because I was member of that executive. It had its last meeting on 26/5/1978. The DLP records are available from the Victorian State Library, but they were not kept on site and needed to be ordered when I last looked at them. ChrisDesmond (talk) 04:15, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

explanatory footnote removed

You ask for the source of "The current name was adopted in the late 1950s after being suggested at a meeting by a young member, Barry O'Shea". It was stated by an attendee of the meeting in question, however a date was not given - how do you reference such information ? The adoption of a formal name for an emerging political organisation is surely important. Gunzle (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Democratic_Labor_Party_(Australia,_1955)/Archive_1&oldid=1218880862"