Talk:Liberal Movement (Australia)

	Liberal Movement (Australia) is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on October 22, 2011.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 12, 2007 Featured article candidate Promoted April 15, 2023 Featured article review Demoted
	Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on April 2, 2011, April 2, 2014, April 2, 2018, and April 2, 2020.
Current status: Former featured article

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Australia: Adelaide / South Australia / History / Politics Low‑importance Liberal Movement (Australia) is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Adelaide (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject South Australia (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian history (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Low-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of South Australia. The Wikimedia Australia chapter can be contacted via email to helpwikimedia.org.au for non-editorial assistance. Politics: Political parties Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Mid-importance). Conservatism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Apologies for the haphazard state of the article at the moment (if anyone's watching). I'm trying desperately to get my hands on Liberals in Limbo, and in lieu am being forced to use less useful sources. michael ^talk 09:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That Advertiser article by Jaensch you added today. Is that online? I don't think it should exist in isolation. Presumably what Jaensch was talking about was the Olsen/Brown rivalry (If not, he should have). (Brown was in the LM for a while). Without mentioning that, the Jaensch quote doesn't make a lot of sense, it's like: Jaensch says there's a problem, but where's the evidence? p.s. I've got this theory that the only reason the Libs stayed with Kerin in 2002-2006 was so the Conservative wing could stop Brown becoming Premier.

Rocksong 11:39, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I've removed it for now, I'll trust your judgment (as you seem to be right all over the place, correcting oddities that us younger kids won't get). The Libs? Well, they're sick. And they'll keep losing. What no one realises is that they "won" in 2002, improving substantially on their 1997 performance, but they still lost where it counted: on the floor. I have no idea why one faction just doesn't bite the bloody bullet and stick behind either a dependable or a charismatic (or both) leader. But that's enough naive political thought from a nineteen-year-old on this night. michael ^talk 11:58, 6 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone happen to come across this book in their travels? 160 pages on the LM must contain some interesting information. Timeshift 18:42, 7 February 2007 (UT

I've read it (its at my University library - in Melbourne sadly for you guys) but it isn't as useful as you might think as it is published BEFORE the split (i.e when the LM was a faction of the LCL). Liberals in Limbo is a better overall resource.

Teiresias84 22:18, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

It is payday and that book is a five-minute drive away - thanks TS! Regards Limbo, it is only available at the State Library (no borrowing), Flinders Uni Library and the Adelaide Uni Library. Since I'm a Unisa boy, it's going to be fun getting my hands on a copy. But some obscure collector or bookshop is sure to have it. michael ^talk 22:24, 7 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I bought Awakening this morning and ordered Limbo in the noon, and will have it in my hands sometime next week. michael ^talk 04:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The ANU library has both of these, and I should have plenty of time on my hands over the next few weeks, so if you want a hand with this, I'd be happy to help. Rebecca 11:07, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. :) We'll get this out of the way, and then hopefully the effort will then be concentrated on the 'Dems (or so is my plan). It's the right time and a good way to send off (regrettably) an important part of Australian political history. michael ^talk 11:15, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, the article is really coming along and I enjoyed reading it. However while I agree with the substance of the Legacy statement; that the factionalism created in this era still troubles the party, it is worth noting that Oslen, like Brown, was in the LM when it was still a faction of the LCL (I remember reading it in Liberals in Limbo which I don't have access to right at the moment, but it should be easy to find in the index as Oslen isn't mentioned much in the book). In addition the liberal/conservative division in the party has outlived the (political) lives of Oslen and Brown so it probably should be changed to a broader statement.

I'll delete it now, and reinstate it in a better and more refined form in time. michael ^talk 12:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I did supply two refs which quoted respected SA political commentators. But what can I say... if Olsen was in the LM too, then those commentators are wrong (or at the least, guilty of oversimplifying). Come to think of it... are you sure? I thought Olsen didn't enter parliament until 1979.

Rocksong 23:10, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Nothing to fret about. Much of this article will be harvested soon, and a better 'legacy' will be in place. (and I'm sure Olsen would have been an LM member, just not an elected one) michael ^talk 23:46, 8 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Olsen was in the LM? News to me.. Timeshift 06:58, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was suprised when I read it, too.

Teiresias84 12:11, 9 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Aha. The

Rocksong 02:20, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I was running through vague sources but I have another book on order and it will arrive shortly. It will contain exact dates. michael ^talk 04:03, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I realise it's a WIP (Work In Progress) but I thought I'd point it out. Thanks for the work you're putting into this.

Rocksong 04:35, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I was by Beneaththelandslide to provide some feedback for this article, and I have done so. I find this topic very interesting, I very nearly did my honours thesis on this, but in the end I didn't so I am not as much of an expert as I otherwise might have been.

The article basically covers everything, there are only a few things I feel that could be mentioned...

• Regarding the circumstances of which Hall came to be LCL leader; Playford arranged for Hall to replace him as LCL leader. Like Playford Hall was a rural MP and had hitherto not expressed moderate social policy positions. This was why Playford chose Hall (and the LCL conservatives supported him in the party room ballot).

Playford didn't arrange for Hall to replace him. In fact, Playford never told anyone who he voted for in the ballot following his resignation. As there was one member who did not cast a vote, Playford may not have even done so (this is speculation on the part on one of his biographers). I am 100% sure, no doubts whatsoever, that the idea that Playford nominated Hall as his successor is a fabrication, but I cannot recall who first made the claim.

• It says that the oringial Hall plan for electoral reform "received scorn from both the Labor opposition and the LCL's own councillors" - prehaps it should be made more clear that the LCL councillors opposed the plan because it went too far (it currently kind of sounds as if some LCL members wanted to go further).

Will fix, good point.

• The paragraph about the conservative LCL members is correct, but it could be mentioned this was aimed to protecting the unofficial leader of the faction, Ren DeGaris, whom his supports feared that Hall would sack. (I think this is mentioned in detail in A Liberal Awakening). In any case, DeGaris needs mentioning somewhere.

I wanted to avoid personalities, especially due to a tendency to paint one side as the "good guys" and the other as the "bad guys". I'll see about adding in something about DeGaris, but he is a saviour to some, and the devil to others, so I'm going to be careful.

• The final paragraph could be expanded to inculde a couple of sentences on the infighting that plauged the LPA after reunification - and ruined the parties chances at the 1977 election. (Henderson's Menzies Child has a bit of useful info from memory) It was after this Tonkin was able to heal many of the wounds before the Liberals suprize victory in 1979.

I wasn't aware of any serious infighting after the immediate reunification, but this does deserve merit and I will see about finding that books. I was under the impression they lost the 1977 election simply because they lacked gusto, enthusiasm and drive, while Labor (with Dunstan) kicked into full swing again.

I think that covers it for now, if I think of anything more, I will add it here. I would make the aforementioned changes myself but I don't have access to the revelant sources right now. (And I don't want to interfere with the beautiful prose!)

I've added in some replies. Thanks for the help! :) michael ^talk 04:17, 7 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Take a ganders @

That's been cut from the website of a school, hasn't it? Oh, I'd love a better photo. michael ^talk 01:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So would I :-) Timeshift 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The figures used in the introduction are not exact and I am well aware of this. They are not exact for the sake of easy reading (it is irritating to digest such long-winded figures when one just wants to get the 'gist' of the article), and not for any other motive (the LM is gone and dead, there is no reason to "beef them up"). The exact figures are available later on in the article. michael ^talk 01:16, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone tell me if "rural conservatives" sounds too much like a pejorative term? michael ^talk 09:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a more correct term is agrarian conservatism or agrarian socialism, depending on a persons POV. Timeshift 09:31, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think "rural conservatives" is far more preferable to either of these. There are connotations to those terms which that do not properly apply in this context. --

talk 11:02, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

Like cj, I prefer "rural" as more accurate.

Rocksong 11:18, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

If it's that the three descriptors are so absolute, I will see about adding 'according to political scientists...". Their work has been cited many times (especially relating to the 'establishment', the more I read the more I doubt such a thing) and has been taken as near-gospel. michael ^talk 13:30, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Both! Though more the latter, that the three groupings were so absolute. They're also in the

Rocksong 23:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

For a litany of ancient history, this LM article is now of considerably reduced interest and could well be pruned down to essentials. What say you guys? Cheers -- Bjenks 04:42, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... *TS stands well back* Timeshift 04:54, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• head spins* Michael ^talk 07:37, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you're not interested, don't read it. I think it's a very important part of South Australian political history. (It could reasonably be argued that that the SA Liberals are still recovering from it, or at least were until very recently). While I accept that there are other more deserving articles which have much less detail, I don't see the point of deleting the good work which has gone into this one.

Peter Ballard 08:49, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply

]

I get the message! It's yours! What about the Party flourishing within other states? I know that there was a 1974 LM Senate candidate within WA, and weren't there some within Vic and NSW?. And when did the line of "successor parties" cease (or is it still going)? It's great to see some of those old battles still being fought over there. Cheers Bjenks 10:43, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote the article, and still have my sources somewhere in the pile of books on my table. If I can recall, there were indeed candidates in other states, but, as the article states: "Hall's hope for Australia-wide support for the LM was dashed due to the events erstwhile occurring, with the party gaining negligible results for their candidates in other states". Michael ^talk 11:00, 5 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, this article is hardly too long. This article might end up at

I think Michael would argue that it does have enough citations. Timeshift (talk) 09:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but he's not here and the general way

WP:FAR have changed in the last two years....I'm sure they can be accounted for, it's not like he would make them up or get them off a blog YellowMonkey (cricket photo poll!) paid editing=POV 01:42, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply

]

In Queensland Clive Palmer was elected Queensland President with his wife Susan Palmer as A key member of the Party. Des Breen a brisbane Barrister tood in the 1975 Federal election .leading the paart ticket . He failed to get elected. Martin Cameron an Australian Liberal Movement Senator from Sout Autralia visted Queensland and campaigned extesively for the Liberal Movement. The party ceased to exhist when the Liberal Movement rejoined the Liberal Party. Most members of the Queenslnd Liberal Moverment rejoined the National Party of Queensland — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.195.42 (talk) 20:58, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

question 1: The obscure and low-ket conservative Bruce Eastick was installed as the new leader first i did not find the word: "low-ket", therefore i suggest it to be "low-key". Is this right???

question 2: Hall initially sought to appeal to the State Council of the LCL. Although the body had no binding authority over the parliamentary caucus, who chose the leader i think that "who" should be changed into "which" as it refers to the parlimentary caucus???

question 3:nd some LCL members began campaigning anonymously against the LCL i guess that LCL shoul be LM as it is illogical that some members of the LCL began a compaign against themselves i want to make sure of these previous points pllllz :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.163.30.155 (talk) 02:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Points 1 and 2 were fixed some time in the past. I think you are correct on point 3, but cannot easily check it myself, so i have added a "Verify source" tag. Adpete (talk) 02:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Mr Palmer has expertise when it comes to South Australian affairs. The Queenslander lived in Adelaide in the mid 1970s, after fleeing his home state when he exposed corruption in the Queensland police force and received a death threat as a result. Mr Palmer was instrumental in the split of Liberal forces in SA at the time, and was active in the less conservative Liberal Movement, headed by former premier Steele Hall. Mr Palmer moved back to Queensland and became active in the National Party".[1] Well then! Does anyone fancy researching this fascinating segway for the article? Timeshift (talk) 22:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I've read a lot on the LM over the years and even spoken to former LM members and never heard mention of Clive Palmer. --Roisterer (talk) 08:53, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suspect because during the LM days he was a nobody, so nobody wrote much if anything on him. Timeshift (talk) 23:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

26 August 2013 - Sure, he’s been political his whole life, and it’s not the first time he’s run a minor-party campaign (he was a key figure in Liberal Party breakaway The Liberal Movement in the 1970s).[2] - and a bit more detail can be found here. Seems legit. Just a pity there's not more solid info to be easily found. Timeshift (talk) 23:28, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]

According to his WP page, Palmer was born in 1954 (so he was 19 when the LM formed, and 22 when it folded), and was at Uni in Queensland from 1973 to 1975. Did he spend some time in SA and have some involvement with the LM? Yeah probably. Was he "instrumental in the split" and "a key figure" as the above sources claim? Nah, I reckon that's Clive inflating his resume; I'd want to see a source which is not directly relying on Clive. Adpete (talk) 02:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Also according to this news.com.au article [3] he joined the National Party in Queensland in 1974. Admittedly these bios sometimes get things out by a year or two, but it's not leaving him much time to be "a key figure" in the LM. Adpete (talk) 02:55, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I found the table at the start of "Elections and support" to be really confusing; in particular, the performance of the other parties is not really relevant (except the LCL), and all other parties were lumped in with ALP, meaning the ALP column was redundant. So I tried simplifying it in this edit[4], though it could be changed back if someone really objects. Adpete (talk) 02:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article relies almost entirely on a single secondary source - Jaensch. Almost the entire article content is sourced to books written or co-written by Jaensch. The lack of other secondary sources becomes more apparent when you realize that Hall was one of the leaders of the movement, that Bullock was his wife, and that Dunstan was a key government figure at the time of the movement. For a political party, we really need the views of more than one secondary scholar here, especially since the most frequently used Jaensch source was written only 2 years after the movement ended. Hog Farm _Talk 14:34, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just clarifying the above comment, by "Jaensch", Hog Farm means "Jaensch and Bullock (1978)", where Joan Bullock is Joan Hall. At first glance I don't think it is problem though: Dean Jaensch qualifies as a reliable and neutral source, and I am not seeing any controversial statements it's supporting. Adpete (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]