Talk:Australian Labor Party

Bots behaving badly

(diff) (hist) . . mb Australian Labor Party‎; 19:49 . . (-943) . . Stubbot (Talk | contribs | block) (Replacing page with '1')
Uh... wha? Did I miss something, or has Stubbot (I assume it's a proper bot) developed a mind of its own? I'm off to bed right now, so I'll just take the attitude of if it's still like this in the morning, I'll simply revert, because I'm too tired to deal with this right now.
In the meantime, if someone could shed some light as to why this page was replaced with 1, I'd be rather grateful. -Redback^G'day 05:11, 4 January 2009 (EST)

Title/name

Surely they spell it "Labour"??? ħuman 19:04, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, guess not. I wonder why? ħuman 19:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The "labour" party is taken by the British Labour Party.Several ingredients (talk) 02:28, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

In Australia??? And please start learning how to successively indent comments, as I did for you here. ħuman 05:13, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Needs Work?

The page is biased, and needs so loving so it is up to scratch with the "Liberal Party" Page. If humorous but biased snark is to make up the entirety of the page, could this instead be the "fun" article for a better and more informative counter page.

--101.162.192.220 (talk) 14:12, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

then work on it. Тy^Bored 14:28, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is this page in the centrist stupidity category when the article about the US Democratic Party isn't?

Seems a touch odd. Geminin667 (talk) 10:32, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

Voting Bias

I feel like this is a common cognitive bias I see everywhere, but it seems that often when people talk about why parties get elected and why they lose, often people attribute parties they like winning to their political ideologies being "correct", but if a party they dislike wins it's not because of their ideas, but because they fear mongered or were corrupt, etc. Maybe they even blame the party they like for not being as perfect at following ideology as they want.

I bring this up because of this section of the article: >> Climate change - Labor's position on climate change helped seal the defeat of John Howard; it made him look out of touch and old. Labor's failure to deliver on those promises under Gillard is what ultimately killed them; it showed them to be ditherers who can't hold onto power.

If Julia Gillard really lost because they failed to follow through with their climate policy, then surely the greens would have had a swing for them. Instead, the greens had a swing against them, and Abbot campaigned largely on "killing the carbon tax". I'm not sure if this is "The Point T.M." of this page/wiki, but I feel like for a wiki titled the "Rational Wiki", we shouldn't fall to such common cognitive biases. ^{— Unsigned, by: Bigbootysam / talk / contribs}

Think you're falling for the same bias mate, Gillards mining tax lost key votes if you go seat by seat. Labor lost BECAUSE of how hard they were on climate change. The polling data of the time shows as much, so did the on ground work. ^{— Unsigned, by: DirectorDirectorDirector / talk / contribs}