Talk:Western Australian National Party

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

Australia: Western Australia / Politics Low‑importance Western Australian National Party 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 Western Australia (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Australian politics (assessed as Mid-importance). Need help improving this article? Ask a LibrarianWhat's this? at the National Library of Australia, or the State Library of Western 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 Low-importance). Conservatism Mid‑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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.

This is not a suggestion for any change, rather I'm just pointing out the link in the info box - Agrarianism - which is defined as: "a social and political philosophy which stresses the viewpoint that the cultivation of plants, or farming leads to a fuller and happier life". Nothing wrong with this of course, and I make no comment on the ideology itself (which probably holds true for many millions of people) and I know next to nothing about political philosophy so can't comment on whether this is a fair explanation of agrarianism. Just seemed quaint and even amusing - especially in the context of 21st century in WA where an 'agrarian' party looks like holding the balance of power.GlenDillon 10:14, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. :) Yeah they are an agrarian party, but it's furthering agricultural interests rather than trying to sell the joys of agricultural life that they advocate. May have to look for a better choice :) Orderinchaos 10:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, there's probably no need to get rid of "agrarianism". Seems appropriate for the Nationals - plenty of decent sources that describe them as an agrarian party. The issue, if there is one, lies with the definition in the Agrarianism article. Noticed that the federal Nats article has both Conservatism and Agrarianism. Maybe that's the way to go here? Also - Fed Nats article shows 'Centre-Right' for political position, which I would have thought was appropriate. When I see the term 'Centre', I think of modern UK Labour but that's just me. I don't know enough about the subject to say which of WA Nats/Fed Nats has the more accurate info box, and its an issue of very low importance anyway. Just pointing out the difference.GlenDillon 10:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think the word is OK but the definition in the WP article may need some work. There's another term I've seen 'Agrarian capitalism' which might also be a better fit. Moondyne 10:43, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're both right, on reflection. Re conservatism - the WA Nats are generally speaking not conservative unlike their Federal counterparts, so that makes that one a bit difficult. The WA Nats have some stances (eg supportive of gay rights and equality of women) which would be abhorrent to some of the east coast branches, but which they've settled on with very little controversy. Orderinchaos 11:21, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of points here:

1). There are contradicting sources online as to whether the two parties reunified in 1984 or 1985 (and a few comments suggesting that the National County Party merged into the Liberals although this seems to have just been the sitting MLAs) - which is correct?

2). There's confusion over just what article should be linked to in this period. This article is treating the National County Party as the continuity and the National Party as a breakaway split, but the intro to

are all linking the National Country Party to the federal party article (and for that matter Nationals in other states are linked there) and the National Party to this article.

Would it be easiest to create a separate article for the National Party produced by the 1978 split, covering the 1978-1984/5 period? The current set-up isn't clear and links from the federal articles don't really explain what was going on. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:39, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Both answers are a little complicated. A 17-point proposal was agreed by both parties on 18 August 1984, and on the basis of it, on 2 October 1984, the two parties united. However, they distinguish between "political party" (branches/membership) and "parliamentary party" (the parliamentarians), and the unity didn't cover the latter. The main reason for this appears to have been the refusal of Old and Jones (NCP) to work in a parliamentary party which included Cowan and Stephens (NP). Source is Ron Elphick "Coalition or Cross Bench" p.128-131. There was a by-election for Central Province in the Legislative Council on 17 November 1984 which was to be the unified party's first outing, where the NP's Eric Charlton was preselected against two NCP opponents (allegedly on the casting vote of the NCP president.) (p.132) All State Council meetings were conducted with 25 members of the former NP and 25 members of the former NCP present. The Parliamentary NCP was wound up on 29 January 1985, and the following day, Old, Jones and Crane announced they would join the Liberals. (p.139-140) Two upper house NCP members, however, eventually joined the NPA.

Apparently, due to a failed grocery venture originally entered to raise money in about 1980 ("Mr Fabulous Discount Stores" in Perth's eastern suburbs), the NCP was $1.25 million in debt , although a combination of negotiation with Foodland and fundraising managed to clear it by the time of the merger. (p.121) The debt situation had actually led to a failed motion to dissolve the NCP on 31 May 1983 (p.123.)

Other interesting sidelines I found while trying to figure out the answer to this:

• 1980 election - Labor and NP came to deal where each didn't run in the other's seats and ALP issued how-to-votes for its own supporters recommending a vote for the NP. Cowan said on TVW7 News in Jan 1980 that the NP would support a minority Labor government if that party had more seats than the Liberal party or a minority coalition. (p.118)
• 12 May 1982 - Ray McPharlin, former Deputy Premier, disassociated from NP and joined NCP.
• December 1983 - Eckersley report released - it said in its overview (Elphick p125): "All this leads the committee to the conclusion that both the National Country Party and the National Party in WA are heading directly into political extinction. While some members may retain their seats on the basis of a personal following in the short term, the end is inevitable unless immediate and positive steps are taken to reunite, restructure, and re-enlist the support of the country electorate." Report was basically accepted by both parties in principle but NCP had some key objections to it (e.g. the recommendation that the organisation being binding on parliamentary members.)

I don't think the split party merits a separate article for the sole reason that it's not a case of B splitting from A then merging back into it - it seems B split, then eventually both were dissolved and a combined entity established largely on B's terms. Were it a cleaner split/merger, I'd agree with you. Orderinchaos 19:02, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]