Talk:Howard government/Archive 1

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

Howard Government

I have decided to be bold and create the Howard Government article to resolve the BLP issues with the John Howard article and so there is a good article which gives an overview of the Howard Administration, a pretty significant period of continuous Government in Australia. I have not put any significant content into the article because I figured what ever I put in there would be considered POV by one editor or the other and that would be a distraction from the main game. I'd be happy to contribute to this article but I figured I'd leave the initial contributions to others to get the feel of how the article will pan out. I would suggest however that it take a very broad overview approach, whenever a certain section starts getting overly detailed it can be branched out to its own article, or content moved to a more appropriate article. Keeping with WP:NPOV the article should concentrate fairly evenly between what are considered to be the 'achievements' of the Howard Government and what are considered to be the 'controversies' of the administration. Would welcome all those who would like to contribute! Cheers, Alec ✉﹌ ۞ 09:36, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

This seems like an excellent idea to me. Good work :) Orderinchaos 10:15, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Great work. May I suggest a summary of each link on that article, so it reads less like a directory? Recurring dreams 11:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comment Recurring dreams. RE more content, that's the idea :) it is currently the skeleton of an article, but I don't want to do a heaps of work on it and then have it torn to shreds, so I've just done the structure, the content should be a collaboration of all the editors who contribute regularly to the political articles. Cheers, Alec ✉﹌ ۞ 11:58, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
I'm a bit cautious about this. I think there is a great potential for this to become an unwieldy, contentious mess, with little encyclopædic value. That's not a reason not to pursue it, I realise, but I think it ought to inform how we shape it. There seems little in the way of a precedent for such an article, the most similar I can find being Presidency of George W. Bush, Premiership of Tony Blair and (infelicitously) Stephen Harper as Prime Minister of Canada. I'm not particularly fond of the latter two articles as I think they inaccurately over-emphasise the 'presidentialisation' of Westminster systems (which, admittedly, is more pronounced in Australia than anywhere else), and my alternate suggestion would be to discuss the Howard Government in a unified Howard Ministry article, but I do think it beneficial do follow existing templates. How does this sound?--cj | talk 13:39, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi Alec. I thought about this also, but then wondered how you would separate Howard the man from Howard the government. What would go in which article? Would quotes go in the biography or the government? What about Howard's policies during the opposition years? He formed policies before he formed government. George W Bush has his policies in his biography article. Well, each policy gets a paragraph, which links to a larger article about that policy. But GW Bush had a lot more history than Howard before politics. Howard has been a politician all his life. Are there BLP issues in the Howard article? Sure, libelous stuff can't go in, but what about controversial policies? Cheers, Lester2 07:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:BLP:
We must get the article right.[1] Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material — whether negative, positive, or just questionable — about living persons should be removed immediately and without discussion from Wikipedia articles,[2] talk pages, user pages, and project space.
An important rule of thumb when writing biographical material about living persons is "do no harm". Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid; it is not our job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives. Biographies of living persons (BLP)s must be written conservatively, with regard for the subject's privacy. Shot info 07:17, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

hi CJ, not that I mind, but I would have thought that that the title "Premiership of John Howard" would be more presidential then Howard Government, I like Premiership as well but the reason I used Howard Government was because that is the common title given in Australia. Cheers, Alec ✉﹌ ۞ 12:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh, I agree. I lamented that in my initial comment. I just think it's prudent, however, to follow the precedent we have in this case (even though, as aforementioned, I'd prefer it to be approached differently).--cj | talk 12:35, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough, looking at the precedents I think the UK ones are the most close to what we're looking at, although I was looking for a article which I would consider to be a bit more broad (less focusing on Howard and his decisions and more focussing on the Cabinet as a whole and the Government in Parliament as a whole) but whatever works, this is why I didn't want to get too far into it without discussion. looking at the Canadian article you used as an example; that looks more like a sub-article of the bio article, so even though political system wise Australia is very similar to Canada, I don't think that would be a good addition, although the John Howard article does emphasis a huge amount on his premiership and might benefit from some sub articles. I propose that further discussion take place on the article's talk page. Cheers, Alec ✉﹌ ۞ 13:04, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion was moved from WikiProject Australian politics and Australian Wikipedian's notice board.

Recreated after Prod

Following recent discussions at Talk:John Howard there seems to be interest in an article on the Government of Howard as distinct from the biography of the man.--Matilda talk 01:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And this is why this page gets deleted. Because people create it filled with nothing and seems redundant. Timeshift (talk) 01:15, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
I've put in the headings I suggested over at John Howard. For the record, I really hate the title of this article; I prefer "Howard Government" which is how we normally refer to different govts in Oz. I'm happy to debate the title later though, lets get the content up to scratch first. --Surturz (talk) 02:55, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, well, for what its worth, people in the UK generally referred to something known as 'The Blair Government', not 'The Premiership of Tony Blair', or for that matter 'The Major Government', 'The Thatcher Government'. And the US equivalent would be 'The Bush Administration', or 'The Bush Presidency'. So ... Eyedubya (talk) 12:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Fabulous to see this article created. Ultimately, perhaps we can have similar articles for all governments cross-ref'd from the Government of Australia page. But I agree with some other contributors - it should be called Howard Government, not Prime ministership of John Howard. It is not just about Howard's role in govt (which current title implies), but his cabinet with him at the helm. In other words, the current title is descriptively inaccurate. But still a fabulous leap forward. cheers hamiltonstone (talk) 12:24, 7 June 2008 (UTC)
Over several talk pages over the last few months, the move proposal got a lot of support. The best bit was that for once editors from all political "sides" agreed. I think this will prove to be a big step forward particularly in the light of the editing disputes that have dogged the topic. It will take some time to bed these changes down. This page here is still in note form, and JH needs major work. But there have been some very capable volunteers putting there hands up. --Merbabu (talk) 12:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Proposed re-structure (copied from Talk:John Howard)

John Howard BLP (this article)

  • Biography - born, elected, married etc
  • Treasurer
  • Opposition
    • Rivalry with Andrew Peacock
    • "Lazarus with a triple bypass"
  • Prime Minister
    • MAIN ARTICLE: Howard Government
    • Relationship with George Bush
    • Leadership and retirement doubts - Costello
    • Decline and fall
  • After politics
  • Honours

Howard Government (working title)

  • Terms
    • each term with start & finish dates, notable events e.g. ministers sacked etc.
  • Social Policy
    • Gun Control
    • Baby bonus
    • First Home owners grant
    • Euthanasia veto
    • Gay marriage veto
  • Economic reform
    • GST
      • Never-ever
    • Industrial Relations - workchoices
  • Nationhood
    • Republic referendum
    • Indigenous affairs - intervention
    • Immigration - Asian immigration comments, Tampa, Children overboard, rhetoric vs. skilled migration increased to record levels
    • Responses to Racism - Pauline Hanson, Cronulla, etc.
    • Citizenship - Testing and content of questions
    • National Security - border protection, Pacific Solution
  • Foreign Affairs
    • East Timor
      • Howard's letter
      • InterFET
    • Iraq war
    • US Alliance

The contents however may be a useful starting point:

  1. Overview
  2. Major issues of Presidency
    1. State of the Union Addresses
    2. Major acts as President
    3. Major treaties signed
    4. Major treaties withdrawn
  3. Major legislation
    1. Legislation signed
      1. 2001
      2. 2002 (etc to 2006)
    2. Legislation vetoed
  4. Administration and Cabinet
    1. Advisors and other officials
    2. Supreme Court nominations and appointments
    3. Federal Reserve appointment
  5. First term (2001-2005)
  6. Second term (2005-Present)
  7. Political philosophy
  8. Environmental Record

Obviously a presidency is not the same as leading a government but maybe this sort of topic list would raise it up a little.

There is an article on Premiership of Tony Blair which perhaps is more analogous and I propose Premiership of John Howard as a title. Contents are:

  1. First term 1997 to 2001
    1. Independence for the Bank of England
    2. Domestic politics
    3. Foreign policy
  2. Second term 2001 to 2005
    1. Iraq war
    2. Domestic politics
    3. Health problems
    4. Connaught Square
  3. Third term 2005 to 2007
    1. G8 and EU presidencies
    2. London to host the 2012 Summer Olympics
    3. 2005 London bombings
    4. Education reforms 2006
    5. Local elections on 4 May 2006 and cabinet reshuffle
    6. Darfur
    7. Resignation as Labour Party leader and Prime Minister
    8. Debate over Muslim women wearing veils
    9. Cash for honours
  4. References

Page move

I think Howard government (1996-2007) would be a more appropriate working title because it is conceptually broader than Prime ministership of John Howard and would allow a more expansive consideration of government policy, achievements, etc as whole rather than from the prism of one man in one role. We should not be setting this article up to run into the criticism that certain content should be excluded for not being directly and exclusively relevant to Howard's Prime Ministership (eg. the views and decisions of Cabinet, the policies of the Government, etc). In other words, this article should be about the team as a whole, not just the captain. --Brendan [ contribs ] 09:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - just drop the years - ie, Howard Government. --Merbabu (talk) 09:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I'm not welded to the idea of including the dates, except that I do think the title needs to better contextualise the article and avoid complication if someone else called Howard becomes a leader of a government somewhere. Remember, the US has two Bushes... --Brendan [ contribs ] 09:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The main point is, the article is intended to be about the government, not specifically John Howard as prime minister, right? --Merbabu (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I definitely agree this article should be about the team, not the captain. I like the dates: Howard government (1996-2007) or even Howard Government (Australia 1996-2007); we can have "Howard Government" (plain) redirect to the title with the dates. It might also be worth having Australian Government 1996, 1997 etc redirect too. Not sure if ppl would search for those. Perhaps a disambiguation page? --Surturz (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
I was personally of the opinion each term merited its own article, but at the risk of thematic duplication. I'm reasonably happy either way. Orderinchaos 09:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Suggestion: restructure Government of Australia first, then Howard Government becomes part of a series

Things here could be rationalised to work better all round: the article Government of Australia could be restructured so that it has a chronology of all Australian Parliaments since Federation, rather than only the current administration. This would provide an historical overview of the institution itself, and the current government page would be the one that gets updated instead. It seems to me that this would fill a gap in the current spectrum of articles and allow a set of articles to be created that dealt with governments rather than just their PMs.Eyedubya (talk) 14:09, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Agree - reasonable suggestion. I don't think we should wait with this one, but should proceed with that sort of reform firmly in mind. Orderinchaos 09:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Excellent idea. I concur, Eyedubya and OrderinChaos. --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:13, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Chronologically or by subject

Looking at the outline put forward (thanks!) it appears to be a mix of chonology (ie, by term) and also by subject (ie, Social Policy). I would have thought we should chose one or the other (i was leaning to chronologically), but are people suggesting we have both? --Merbabu (talk) 09:32, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I lean toward chronological as well. If we starting grouping things by themes, the article will too easily veer down the path of original research. Chronological may be dry but at least it is comprehensible, hopefully less subjective and lends itself well to representing a linear progression of verifiable events. --Brendan [ contribs ] 10:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
That's similar to what I was thinking, but I'd still like to hear any arguments for themes/subject order. I might be swayed. --Merbabu (talk) 10:06, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I'll argue for themes, because it will let us go in more detail. If we go chronological, each year will end up a series of disconnected dot points and people will need to read the whole article to get a sense of all the (say) immigration issues that occurred during Howard's tenure. Chronological makes it hard to argue about relative weight of events too, so people will add every little thing. Themes means related events are next to each other, making it easy to compare which are more worthy of inclusion. Also, themes will quarantine any edit warring "authorised use of edit" to sections of the article, rather than affecting the entire article. The choice of "themes" might be a bit subjective, so we could divide (roughly) on government departments if people are worried about POV/OR - although there hasn't been much controversy over headings so far. --Surturz (talk) 13:22, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
    • I agree strongly with those in favour of a thematic approach for all of the above reasons. If there is an issue with subjectivity, then use the names of Government departments, policies, programs, initiatives, etc. as headings for sections. This approach would enable comparison between articles of the same type on other Government of Australia articles (eg: Keating Government, Hawke Government, etc etc) making such articles a genuinely useful resource. The chronological approach is too hard to follow for all but the most dedicated users and is only readable when structured as a narrative, but then, as such, would open up the article to claims of POV, since a narrative is always perspectival. Stories are likely to be highly contested, because some will feel that certain threads have been emphasised over others and it will be very difficult to make the story read well without it. I feel that the chronological approach isn't very informative or useful in an encyclopedic context. However, such articles do have their place as sub-articles of thematic articles. It doesn't have to be either/or. We can have both, on the principle that different formats are useful for different purposes. Eyedubya (talk) 14:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
The Australian Political Chronicle tends towards very broad thematic but in a chronological way - there are often interruptions of later events into earlier ones and vice versa, but it's fairly easy to follow. As the academics have gone that way I don't see any major problem with following. Orderinchaos 09:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • As the themes remained undeveloped, I have restored chronological approach. Note complaints about empty sections --Matilda talk 01:27, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

List of Missing Events

I haven't seen the merit of 2 Howard articles, but nonetheless, here are some parts of the Howard story that are currently not covered in either of the two Howard articles:

  • Howard family New Guinea interests (previously deleted from article)
  • Howard's use of alcohol in the 1980s due to his despair over losing leadership to Peacock (deleted from article)
  • Howard's stated admiration for historian Geoffrey Blainey
  • Howard's stated opposition to multiculturalism
  • Commencement of mining at Kakadu
  • Ban on public taking photos of parliament
  • Immigration -initially reduced, family reunion reduce - skilled migration for business increased in last term
  • Claims of ABC bias, and inquiries into it
  • Australian Federal Police office running in Indonesia to stop boat people
  • Details of the use of outback detention centres, controversy, conditions, riots etc
  • Temporary Protection Visas (TPV) given to refugees
  • Internal revolt over refugees - Petro Georgio et al
  • Semi-automatic pistols not subject gun control (deleted from article)
  • Howard fronts gun lobby wearing a flak jacket -consensus is that it does not deserve inclusion --Surturz (talk) 16:02, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
See below, I don't think there is a consensus for not including this, sorry!Eyedubya (talk) 10:48, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
  • SIEV-X saga
  • Waterfront - Patricks Stevedores
  • Howard's ongoing, continuous, close relationship with GWBush
  • Howard's continual denial of Iraq war plans through 2002 and early 2003
  • Tough talk about Weapons of Mass Destruction
  • AWB scandal
  • Telstra sale
  • Claims that Howard government shut down Senate inquiries and debates (eg for Telstra sale)
  • Howard's promotion of nuclear energy
  • Term 4 - falling popularity in 2007 - meetings by colleagues to overthrow him

I have cross-posted this list to Talk:John Howard. Please don't cross out or delete any points, as there is space in the next section (below) to discuss them. --Lester 01:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

  • Economics section. Would be good to discuss the unique economic performance, interest rates, fiscal circumstances, housing booms, etc - it was afterall one of the, if not the, main reason he kept getting elected. Needs to be developed. --Merbabu (talk) 03:30, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
    • Whatever the reasons Howard kept getting re-elected, we need to cite the views of reliable, verifiable sources, not the opinons of editors. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I have struck out 3 items - 2 aren't relevant to the Gov't though they may be to the article about Howard the person. One is actually mentioned by the Howard article at present - please review --Matilda talk 02:16, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
They are relevant to the BLP. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Comments by me:
  • Not sufficiently relevant: PNG (about his father not him, we've been over this before), photos in parliament, mining in Kakadu. SIEV-X (this was a terrible tragedy and I'm very pro refugees, but I honestly don't see how this fits into a Howard article)
I think there's a book about this that could provide material to demonstrate relevance. Meanwhile here's something to be going on with and something else that lists a wide variety of sources. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, it looks like I'm wrong on SIEV-X; the others I still think are not sufficiently relevant. Peter Ballard (talk) 12:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
In broad agreement here. Orderinchaos 20:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Minor, borderline: alcohol (maybe in personal page), nuclear energy, ABC bias.
The alcohol is interesting in the BLP, not under Howard Govt. Nuclear energy is relevant, and the issue of ABC bias is highly relevant to the Howard Govt article.Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Gun control / Flak jacket: the big controversy at the time was how he took on Conservatives who were anti-gun control. I've no problem with article containing complaints by a few that it didn't go far enough, so long as the emphasis is on him battling those who wanted less gun control.
I agree.Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Immigration - as I've mentioned elsewhere, skilled/family migration was a pretty minor issue politically so I'm not sure there's much to say without straying into POV/OR.
We need to find some sources on this one, as it seems to me that it could be more significant than first appears, given the relationship that it has in a structural sense to issues of education and training in Australia. There will be some issues that are sensational politically, others that are important from a policy view that maybe pass unremarked by the media, but both may be worthy of inclusion in the Howard Govt article.Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Things that definitely belong, but with a balanced treatment: AWB, Telstra sale, Refugees, Iraq War, Terms 4 troubles.
Peter Ballard (talk) 02:39, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Peter, I could agree with these depending to which article you are saying they are relevant. Could you clarify please? thanks --Merbabu (talk) 03:12, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The ones I'm saying yes to could go in one or the other, the ones I'm saying no to should go in neither. Generally they go in the Howard Government article. I've stayed out of the split discussion, though the way I'd do it is take nearly everything on Howard 1996-2007 and put it in the government article. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:45, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I disagree, see above. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

More battlefronts, Lester? Do you intend to take each of these through the dispute process if "necessary"? My reluctant feedback. Feel free to add you comments and name under each point like I did.

In summary, almost all of it needs to go into [[Howard Govt], if at all. thanks --Merbabu (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion, its all relevant, and just needs to be sorted between the two articles and rendered in a NPOV way. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I just presented a list of points about Howard's history that are not currently in the article. It shouldn't automatically be received described as a "battle", which may discourage other editors from the discussion.--Lester 04:01, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Lester makes a good point. I think we should find ways of including everything on the list. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
You've got to be kidding. Do the other editors truly believe this is an NPOV list? --Surturz (talk) 15:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
A list of events can't be NPOV. The way those events are treated could be potentially NPOV, depending on how it is written. I have added some more recent events to the list. I ask other editors not to delete any points. You can place a comment in the section below, but please don't delete the points. Thanks, --Lester 09:43, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion of particular points

*Howard family New Guinea interests (previously deleted from article)
Like the Obama issue, this has been discussed to death, all avenues were tested, and people moved on. It does no good to bring it up over and over.
It was one of the issues solved by a mega edit war, not consensus.--Lester 03:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
If relevant, and I don't believe it is in the ocntext of a wikipedia length article, it should be in the article on Howard the person.--Matilda talk 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I agree, its personal to Howard. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I still believe this issue belongs in the Lyall Howard article as it had no relation (or likely major impact) to JH. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
*Howard's use of alcohol in the 1980s due to his despair over losing leadership to Peacock (deleted from article)
source? Reliability of info? --Merbabu (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It was widely covered in the news media and JWHoward biography, and previously existed in the article. It shows his despair at that point in his life.Lester 03:43, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
If relevant, and I don't believe it is in the ocntext of a wikipedia length article, it should be in the article on Howard the person. I don't beleive it was very widely covered - unlike say Hawke's use of alcohol.--Matilda talk 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I didn't know about it, but now that I do, I support its inlcusion in the Howard BLP, not the Howard Govt article. It helps demonstrate his tenacity. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
If we have reliable sources (eg in one of his two biographies, which would be likely to contain such), yes, it could go in the JH article. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard's stated admiration for historian Geoffrey Blainey
There is quite a lot of published information about Howard's admiration of Blainey. Just like Rudd admired a German Christian activist, for Howard it was Blainey.--Lester 09:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Published by who? NN. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
You could take this 2 ways. Howard admired both Blainey and Magaret Thatcher. Howard used to repeat many Blainey ideas and phrases, the most well known was probably the phrase "black armband view of history". It could also extend into the History Wars, and the changes to school history ciriculum, and changes to the National Museum of Australia etc etc. --Lester 04:54, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
A minimalist position would be to make it clear that Howard frequently used the phrase 'black armband view of history' and state its provenance with a link to Blainey. But if good refs can be found showing that Howard held Blainey in great stead, then it has to be in there. Eyedubya (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard's stated opposition to multiculturalism
Another big policy of Howard's, both before and during his Prime Ministership.--Lester 09:40, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, unequivocally, unambiguously, without a skerrick of a doubt, this has to be in the article, and deserves its own section, or a section with 'multiculturalism' in the title. Eyedubya (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
*Commencement of mining at Kakadu
Howard government but in broader context of energy policy probably --Matilda talk 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard Govt.Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
HG. (but didn't it start under the previous govt?) Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Doesn't it have bipartisan support going back to Labor's "Three mines policy"? Non-notable unless we want to document every major project which started in 1996-2007 (which we don't). Peter Ballard (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
*Ban on public taking photos of parliament
significance? Certainly not John Howard article--Merbabu (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It was sparked by a photo of an MP sleeping in parliament. Relevant to the control of government image.--Lester 03:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
can't see its significance--Matilda talk 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard Govt, not the BLP. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Not sure it's relevant to either. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
who cares? Trivial - photos/video of parliament is a new thing. --Surturz (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There was also a big issue against using photos, or even official news footage of parliamentarians for the purpose of ridicule. You could not buy archival footage from the ABC if it was determined you were going to use the footage for "ridicule". Previously, anyone could go to the visiting gallery of Parliament House and snap as many photos of the pollies as they wanted.--Lester 22:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
It's certainly an issue, but it's not actually related to HG, more to the power of the executive generally, and possibly related to (likely trumped up) security concerns which have seen similar clampdowns all over the Western world. Orderinchaos 01:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Non-notable. Peter Ballard (talk) 02:57, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
If it was a HG decision, then noteable in HG. Timeshift (talk) 05:44, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
*Immigration -initially reduced, family reunion reduce - skilled migration for business increased in last term
Howard government article not Howard the person unless can show some good reason--Matilda talk 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard Govt, agree. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
HG. Only his statements on immigration relate to JH. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
HG if factual and NPOV. --Surturz (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
*Claims of ABC bias, and inquiries into it
Howard government article not Howard the person unless can show some good reason--Matilda talk 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard Govt. Agree. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
HG - it was more an Alston hobbyhorse than a Howard one, although he certainly wasn't being stopped. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, it was mainly Alston, though that is part of the Howard government.--Lester 22:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
*Australian Federal Police office running in Indonesia to stop boat people
relevance to either? --Merbabu (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It is part of the extraordinary story of border protection. There have been TV programs on this. I believe the Sunday program also ran a multi-week feature on the AFP Indonesia issue.--Lester 03:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard government article not Howard the person --Matilda talk 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Yup, Howard Govt. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
HG. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
*Details of the use of outback detention centres, controversy, conditions, riots etc
  • Howard govt maybe – not John Howard. And what is it with this obsession with expressing the “controversy” into the articles? --Merbabu (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard government article not Howard the person --Matilda talk 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard Govt. Agree. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
HG. (Howard didn't run them himself, and to be fair part of the issue was the privatisation of immigration detention, and the government lost control of large bits of the enterprise. I have a book about it somewhere. That privatisation should be in as it's a key plank of HG ideology.) Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
*Temporary Protection Visas (TPV) given to refugees
Howard government article not Howard the person --Matilda talk 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard Govt. Agree. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
HG. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
*Internal revolt over refugees - Petro Georgio et al
It's an important part of history that there was internal revolt over the asylum seeker issue. There were Liberal Party MPs on both sides of the debate, and it wasn't unanimous. --Lester 22:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Seems more relevant to HG to me. Eyedubya (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
*Semi-automatic pistols not subject gun control (deleted from article)
Howard government article not Howard the person --Matilda talk 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard Govt. AgreeEyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Not entirely sure it's relevant (belongs more in a hypothetical Gun control in Australia article?) Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Irrelevant - your point is that the laws regarding semi-automatic pistols were not changed? --Surturz (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Since Howard got a lot of political capital from his actions on guns, there needs to be some clear explanation in detail about just what those gun laws involved. And it needs to be in the JH article, because the issue was so strongly identified with him personally (which is another reason for including a picture of him in a flak-jacket), which leads nicely into the next item. Eyedubya (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
*Howard fronts gun lobby wearing a flak jacket
tedious.--Merbabu (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
trivial --Matilda talk 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Include in the section on gun control (whichever article that's in now) Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Trivial, but interesting and well-reported nonetheless. May belong in a separate subject article rather than one of these. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Trivial. --Surturz (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I beg to differ. see ablove. Eyedubya (talk) 09:56, 17 June 2008 (UTC)
*SIEV-X saga
Howard government article not Howard the person --Matilda talk 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard Govt. Agree. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
HG. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
*Waterfront - Patricks Stevedores
Can't believe this is not included in Howard Government --Lester 22:59, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
A lot of this event type stuff I'll probably find when I hit the literature in a few days (being a student at two institutions plus having a computer at one of my locations go bung has slowed me down :() Orderinchaos 01:33, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Deserves its own article. Eyedubya (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
*Howard's ongoing, continuous, close relationship with GWBush
fair enough – I thought it was in the article. --Merbabu (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
covered in the Howard the person article--Matilda talk 04:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard BLP. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Already in BLP --Surturz (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There is only a minimal amount in the John Howard article. Needs expansion. --Lester 22:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
*Howard's continual denial of Iraq war plans through 2002 and early 2003
possible briefest of brief mentions
Significant, include in Iraq War section. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
To some extent in both, to which extents they apply. HG for policy (free trade agreement, war in Iraq etc), JH for personal relations and "deputy sheriff" and etc.
*Tough talk about Weapons of Mass Destruction
Iraq War. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
In terms of Australia's involvement, HG, but agree it's not dreadfully related. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
It's related, as it was an endlessly repeated reason our country went to war. There was even a daytime debate in parliament, it went on for hours, where MPs on all sides debated it.--Lester 22:55, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
*AWB scandal
Howard Govt. Agree. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Own article with main link from HG. (I have a book on it and academic literature also exists.) Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Worthy of its own article --Surturz (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I revise my opinion and think it deserves its own article. Eyedubya (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
*Telstra sale
Howard Govt. Agree. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
HG. Possibly important to a hypothetical Communications in Australia article too, in which case the coverage in HG can be limited to policy actions and statements made, with the main story going in the other article. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
HG. --Surturz (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
Also deserves its own article, linked to HG and other articles about privatisations more generally. Eyedubya (talk) 13:36, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
*Claims that Howard government shut down Senate inquiries and debates (eg for Telstra sale) --Merbabu (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard Govt. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard didn't personally (not a senator). So HG. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Not worthy of inclusion. Governments of both persuasions (shock, horror) use their numbers in parliament to get their legislation through. Keating did the same thing and Rudd is doing it now (e.g. to force through Friday sittings without question time). Would only be notable if Howard had not used his numbers in the Senate to stifle debate. --Surturz (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
There was an issue about control of the Senate being used for this purpose, and no other government (including Rudd) has had senate control since Fraser.--Lester 23:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
*Howard's promotion of nuclear energy
Howard Govt. Agree. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
HG, with mentions where appropriate in JH - it was a extra-governmental personal campaign to some extent. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
*Term 4 - falling popularity in 2007 - meetings by colleagues to overthrow him
Certainly should be in there. --Merbabu (talk) 02:54, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Both. Eyedubya (talk) 08:47, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Both, where they apply. Orderinchaos 09:31, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
Howard's final year was plagued by stories leaking out about traitors (maybe that's too strong a word) in the ranks, and secret meatings of top MPs (wasn't there one in a Sydney apartment during APEC) where they would meet and decide who would tap Johnny on the shoulder and tell him its time to go etc etc. Costello and Turnbull seemed to be responsible for many of the leaks. --Lester 23:11, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Wow - again, the article split has created quite a bit of consensus here. Not full consensus, but good general agreement. Nice one. more to come no doubt. --Merbabu (talk) 09:15, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Definitely. I'll be paying a trip to the library either tomorrow or Friday for some very decent sources. Orderinchaos 09:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Still not complete

I question whether the page in its current version should be linked from the John Howard article as it clearly remains a draft work in progress, and should be sandboxed as such. It's been quite a while now since the page was added. On the flipside though, good work, as it finally stops all the questionable WP:BLP complaints. Timeshift (talk) 05:39, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

It should not be sandboxed for two reasons...
  • All wikipedia is a draft work in progress. Having articles available to the most number of people possible is part of the encyclopedia creation process. Removing this article to sandbox takes it out of main space and removes the links from other articles that hopefully guide interested editors to this page.
  • Further, if this goes off line, then the items that were removed from John Howard (and should not go back) are no longer on main space. This could be used to put them back into John Howard.
To sand box it is a backward step and it is less likely to be improved. --Merbabu (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Merbabu. Would it be be worth nominating this as the Australian Collaboration of the Fortnight? Nick Dowling (talk) 06:38, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Then sandbox the incomplete sections. That is the most non-encyclopedic of all. Timeshift (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
No - as above - all wikipedia articles are work-in-progress - some more than others - seek to improve instead. Sandboxing would not be appropriate.--Matilda talk 09:54, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Don't you get it? There are empty sections. This is completely different to all articles being a work in progress? Empty sections are unacceptable. Timeshift (talk) 14:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Well feel bold then add something! For example, gun control is mentioned under 1st term, no need for dupe heading.--Matilda talk 22:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Timeshift, "don't you get it?" is a little unfair, and borders on the uncivil - it certainly doesn't foster collaborative atmosphere. Matilda did a lot of work to get this article up and running, as did others. You've raised a concern and people have responded - my suggestion is it's now time to either help improve it or let others get on with it. While blank sections are not ideal, that’s not the same as “unacceptable”. You write good prose, so why not help out and "prosify" some of the dot points - even fill out some of the sections so we can argue over them. (wink). --Merbabu (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
Because i'm over editting John Howard articles - it's not worth the unavoidable arguments with trolls. I'll just sit back and laugh that we all find empty sections on published encyclopedia articles acceptable. Timeshift (talk) 23:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)
OK - you sit back and laugh, and hopefully someone else can do the work that you cannot do. --Merbabu (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I hope so, as at the moment this article is an embarrassment. Timeshift (talk) 01:13, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thanks. --Merbabu (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
The article should be sandboxed for the time being. The layout was proposed on June 5, and on June 6 it started happening, with content being moved from the JH article to the HG article. It all happened very quickly, during a very tense period on the JH talk page when most editors were consumed in other goings on. I agree with user:Timeshift that missing sections look bad. --Lester 00:43, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
  • There are now no blank sections. I have reformatted to a chronological perspective dealing with terms as that is what we inherited from the Howard article. I think it important to revisit why we have this article - we are distinguishing from Howard the individual and the achievements of his government. I think this article meets those objectives. Obviously room for improvement. However the complaint at the beginning of this thread has been dealt with.--Matilda talk 01:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Lead - period of time or administration

Again; "Howard Government" does not refer to a period of political history (such as the Victorian era or maybe the "Howard years") it is specific to a particular federal government administration and would not be an inclusive description of political events outside of that administration but within the time period of 1996-2007. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 04:40, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

  • I concur that I do not agree entirely with the recent change to the lead which implies the scope of the article is political events within the time period but not necessarily concerned with the administration. I think the scope of the article needs to be confined to have a connection with the Howard administration. Matilda talk 05:27, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I think the lead has become too long again. WikiTownsvillian 09:58, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Nah - length is fine. It's a long article and will get longer. --Merbabu (talk) 11:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
Until there are other articles with similar titles (such as 'the Keating Government" etc), then the debate over the meaning of the title and the way the lead is worded will continue, and potentially, proliferate. For example, why is this the only WP article about an Australian government named in this way? It might legitimately be concluded that there is a place called Howard, and that this is an article about its government. However, the lead makes it clear that isn't the case. Yes, I know that this has been an attempt to follow the example of the "Blair administration", but that again, is the only article with that title (though there is one called Thatcher government). Such articles are rare however - there is no Bush Administration, no Major government ... so what is it that makes these three so special that they exist in a category all of their own? ("Governments named after their Leader"). What do they have in common? Are there features that they share that warrant such individualised treatment, or are they really the products of devoted fans - extremely large examples of fancruft in fact? Well, both Thatcher and Blair headed governments whose terms lasted longer than they did, so clearly, the time factor is less relevant (though not irrelevant). But Howard did lead a government whose term in office coincided with his time as prime minister, meaning that the periodicity or time factor in this case is actually a significant and distinguishing feature - perhaps even, a notable one! So, perhaps this debate over the precise meaning (whether denoted or connoted or even, exemplified in this instance) may be allowed to run its course a bit more? Eyedubya (talk) 04:11, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I thought it was a pointless article as well, but after some research, there is lots on the "Howard Government" in secondary sources. It is almost a term of art. Assize (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I would see that there should indeed be a series of articles including Keating Government, Menzies Government, ... It seemed quite clear that there was stuff being included in the John Howard article which was not attibutable to him but to his government - this article has defused that issue. As Assize states there is plenty of reliable sources to support the term being used - similarly there are for Menzies too [1] or even Fisher though not so many but enoughI think that OTHERSTUFFDOESN'TEXISTYET isnn't an OK argument - it just means there is plenty of opportunities :-) --Matilda talk 06:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Quite. However, until other stuff gets written using this formulation it will remain in doubt as to whether this article is really just a piece of fancruft or a genuine contribution to encyclopedic knowledge. Just because the phrase "Howard Government" has been used so much, doesn't mean it warrants an article of this length, since it could equally have been a sub-section on the history of the Government of Australia, given that we are talking history here, right? Eyedubya (talk) 08:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
We are talking history and probably too much material to be incorporated in history of Aus Government. Not all of us here are fans of any government, not this one nor that of Mr Rudd - I liked Keating the musical though. If you think the article length is unjustified and it could be just a subsection of another article - please do advise. I can't think such an approach ould be justified though. Yes it is recentism at present but there is no reason why articles on other Government terms of office will not be written. --Matilda talk 20:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I think this section of the lead could be moved or deleted.

The Ministers of the Howard Government were selected from the Parliamentary caucus of the Liberal and National parties who have been in a stable Coalition at the federal level for many decades. In accordance with the coalition agreement, the leader of the Liberal Party was always the Prime Minister and the leader of the National Party was always the Deputy Prime Minister. The senior ministers meet together as the Cabinet to determine the policy direction of the Government.

Thoughts? --Surturz (talk) 04:18, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes it could. But as the article is fairly start-ist, I would say that it should be kept there until the rest of the article develops. Assize (talk) 05:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
I've moved the paragraph to the first HG section. Probably should have its own section as a backgrounder to the article, with links to the appropriate Australian Government pages. --Surturz (talk) 05:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Foreign policy of the Howard government

Noting such pages as Foreign policy of the Harper government, Foreign policy of the Clinton Administration, Foreign policy of Hugo Chávez, and others at Foreign policy#Individual leaders, is there any reason why one for John Howard could not be created? Timeshift (talk) 15:32, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Feel free - but any reason why not to develop as a subsection of this article first and break out if necessary due to length ? --Matilda talk 15:39, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
Better to have it as a subsection of the Howard Gov article, or as a subsection of an article on Australian Government foreign policy. It gets a bit fancrufty otherwise. Eyedubya (talk) 13:31, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
There should be sub-articles about matters such as Howard's foreign policy, and also other subjects such as economic policy. The articles should match the sub-headings in the original John Howard article. Then you have one article that briefly encompasses everything, and sub-articles for those who want more detail about a particular subject, such as Foreign or Economics, and everything is just 1 single layer down from the main article. Now that we have both 'Howard the man' and 'Howard the government' articles, it becomes more confusing, as the issues that shaped Howard the Man also shaped his government. In this format, the government article needs to be all-encompassing, and fit everything in it. Otherwise, you have to dig down more than one layer to get to information. That is, you click on Howard the Man, then it leads you to Howard the Government (1 layer down), and then you click on a sub-article from the Government article to get to Foreign Policy (2 layers down). It has also presented a wonderful opportunity for POV split, as not-so-positive content goes to the deeper layers where people are less likely to venture. --Lester 00:42, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Name change suggestion

How about changing the name to Coalition Government – 1996 to 2007 or something similar – ie, a name that is based on the Government and/or party name, rather than based on John Howard? --Merbabu (talk) 22:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

  • Obviously Howard Government would redirect here, but if you look at the obvious name that people seem to use, Howard Government seems pretty intuitive, followed by Rudd Govt, preceded by Keating Govt, preceded in turn by Hawke Govt - I think the distinction between the Hawke and Keating Govts is why the name change is not intuitive as far as I am concerned. --Matilda talk 00:27, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I saw my name change suggestion as a natural progression from the acknowledgement that John Howard the person (and hence the biography) was very distinct (yes, but with overlap) to the 96-07 govt. Further, it strengthens that distinction particularly in the light of those people who maintain that they are one in the same and should be combined.
As for 83-96, I envisage at one stage an article for the Hawke/Keating years, and that it would be a single article: Hawke/Keating Govt or Labor Government 1983-1996 (or similar). I wouldn't recommend having seperate articles for the Hawke and Keating PMships. 83-96 was continuous with a change in PM - not govt. --Merbabu (talk) 00:41, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I don't feel strongly and can see merit in both approaches and in particular I can see that if we follow Merbabu's suggested name change it does indeed strengthen the distinction between the man and the govt which was the rationale for having a separate article. --Matilda talk 00:51, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I much prefer Howard Government. State and Federal governments are now usually called after their PM or Premier as Australia seems to be moving towards Presidential type campaigns. The press uses that terminology. If anything, it really is an "Australian Executive Government 1996 to 2007". Assize (talk) 03:52, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
Any particular reason why you'd like them seperated? The way I saw it was that the big changes didn't happen with change to Keating, but were in 83 and 96. And, of course 75-83. --Merbabu (talk) 07:23, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
I think there's not enough to say about the Hawke and Keating governments to warrant a split. A separate article on their governments (either one or two) would just be duplication for no benefit. I don't like the Howard government split either, but at least there's the rationale that the JH article was getting long. Peter Ballard (talk) 07:38, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
'Howard Government' is the common name for the Australian government between 1996 and 2007, so it seems the best name for the article per WP:NAME. Nick Dowling (talk) 08:10, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

Conservative

I see the word "conservative" was removed from the intro. I think that "conservative" should be used somewhere in the intro to describe the Howard government. The reason is that Howard's government was widely described as conservative, by both Howard and the media. Howard also once described himself has the most conservative politician Australia had ever seen. Conservative may or may not describe Turnbull's opposition (we'll wait and see), but in the case of Howard's government, it was unarguably conservative.--Lester 06:08, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Peter says that because we don't say progressive Labor Party that we should not say conservative coalition parties. I disagree with this as conservatism is an external word which helps define what united the two parties. Whereas in other countries you have coalitions of parties forming government who are across the political spectrum. Under Howard in particular both parties demonstrated their inherent conservatism and were proud of it.
The name "Liberal Party of Australia" will always be confusing without clarification to people who may be reading the article that are not familiar with Australian politics. Being conservative was a defining feature of the Howard Government and should be in the lead. WikiTownsvillian 06:17, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
If people want to find what Liberal Party of Australia or Coalition (Australia) means they can click the links. I don't see adjectives prepended to "Republican" or "Democratic" for US politicians, even though the terms are meaningless. I have no problems with Howard or even his government being called conservative, but I do have problems with "conservative" being before "Coalition" or "Liberal Party", because the Liberals are not conservative as a whole, or at the very least it is debatable. If you want to put "conervative" in the lead, put in a sentence or clause saying Howard or his government was notably conservative; that would be more accurate. Peter Ballard (talk) 06:43, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • Look, this is a can of worms. The Liberal Party can quite quite rightly claim to be a "liberal" party in the original sense of the term - see Liberalism and Classical Liberalism. "Liberal" derived from "Liberty" meaning "Freedom" is interpreted by right-wing people as meaning "if there are less laws, there is more freedom". In the American/left-wing interpretation, "Liberal" means "lots of laws that protect freedoms". So for example anti-vilification laws would be seen as illiberal by right-wing people, as they restrict free speech, while left-wing people would see them as pro-liberal because they protect people from vilification. The Coalition and its ancestors have always been best described as "anti-Labor". The original Coalition was between the Free-Traders and the Protectionists (think about that incongruity for a second!) and even the current coalition between the free-trade Liberals and the more protectionist National Party is of a similar nature. Even the Liberal Party itself has a deep division between social libertarians (the so-called 'small-l liberals') and socially conservative members. Suffice it to say, a sizeable portion of the Liberal party would dislike being labelled conservative. While Howard himself was definitely a conservative, it is hard to make the case that ministers such as Christopher Pyne were. --Surturz (talk) 06:48, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • And besides, 'Conservative' implies a resistance to change, and Howard made some fairly substantial changes in his time in government - introduced the GST, banned semi-automatics etc. The problem is that it is incorrect to use 'Liberal' as a synonym for 'left wing' and much as it is an error to use 'Conservative' as a synonym for 'right wing'. --Surturz (talk) 06:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

COnservative is a label, in the same manner as "progressive" - and it is POV and commentary - even if Howard himself uses the term. It can be stated though as a POV, rather than fact. --Merbabu (talk) 07:15, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Howard_government/Archive_1&oldid=1144748291"