Talk:Bob Hawke

I need to verify Bob Hawke's world record for drinking beer in 11 seconds based on this article. Does anyone have more info and a source for this data? Thanks!

Not as such, but it is certainly true. He was listed in the Guinness Book of Records for many years and it was commonly reffered to in the press. Given the scrutiny of Hawke's life since he became PM, it would be astonishing to discover that it wasn;t true and no journalist had yet discovered it. !!!

---

I was amused by the following extract from Hawke's entry:

"They moved to Canberra while Hawke started studying for a doctorate at the Australian National University. But Hawke abandoned the degree in 1958 when he was offered a post as research officer at the Australian Council of Trade Unions (ACTU) headquarters in Melbourne."

My former lecturer, Dennis, was a fellow PhD student with Hawke at ANU and tells the story of Hawke leaving the university somewhat differently. One evening Dennis was assisting with a function for Australia's Anglican Bishops that was being held at ANU when he (and all the bishops) saw Hawke and a male friend naked and drunk staggering down the lane towards them, singing a bawdy song. A number of the bishops were so shocked they dropped their tea cups. Hawke and his friend were subsequently expelled from ANU and Hawke eventually found work with the ACTU. One could argue that if Hawke continued with his PhD he wouldn't have become Prime Minister.

I considered adding this to his entry but thought it might be safer to include here instead.

--Roisterer 01:37, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

If this story can be documented - that is, if it has appeared in print without refutation, or if you have spoken to an eyewitness - it should certainly be included. Adam 02:23, 25 May 2004 (UTC)

Vanished Golden Age

... and by 2004, when Howard won his fourth election, the Hawke years had come to seem like a vanished golden age to Labor voters.

User:PMelvilleAustin changed to this from 2001 & third, but I think there's no need. Unfortunately, I think this quote heard during the 2004 election commentary should be added instead:

By Howard's fourth election, in 2004, there are children that have only known Howard as PM.

(And some of them will be teenagers by his fifth election :-( ) Mark Hurd 12:04, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

23rd or 28th Prime Minister?

129.94.6.30 insists that Hawke was the 28th prime minister. This is understandable, since Hawke is the 28th entry in a typical list of prime ministers. However, this does not take into account the fact that Deakin and Fisher will appear on the list three times, and Menzies will appear twice. It seems strange to claim that Deakin was the second, fifth and seventh prime minister. And if we are going to count Deakin as the second, fifth and seventh prime minister just because he served non-contiguous terms, then shouldn't we also count prime ministers that served multiple continugous terms as multiple prime ministers. No way. The only reasonable approach is to count them uniquely, and number them in order of first appointment. Personally, I prefer not to number them at all. The number is largely meaningless after all. But as long as a number is to appear, 23 is clearly superior to 28. Drew Devereux 01:30, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This approach concurs with the official National Archive pages. For example Malcolm Fraser (http://primeministers.naa.gov.au/meetpm.asp?pmId=22) is listed as being the 22nd, therefore we can see Bob Hawke must be the 23rd. --Wm 20:44, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I agree with 23 rather than 28 for Bob Hawke. Australia does not have an official tally of Prime Ministers, unlike the USA which does count its Presidents, and the same name can be given different numbers if the President had 2 non-consecutive terms. Americans are used to this convention, but it makes no sense to Australians to call (say) Deakin, the 2nd, and the 5th and the 7th Prime Minister. He was the 2nd person to hold the office of Prime Minister, so he is only the 2nd Prime Minister. By the same reasoning, Bob Hawke was the 23rd. If Hawke were to make a comeback and defeat John Howard (the 25th PM), Hawke would still be the 23rd PM, not the 26th. JackofOz 00:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

If desired, the wording could be made less ambigous. e.g.: "the 23rd person to become Prime Minister", perhaps more information could be added. e.g. "28th Prime Ministerial Term" (or something) --Wm 02:05, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

All parliamentary and official documents follow the convention of not counting each PM more than once. Hawke is therefore the 23rd PM. An encyclopaedia is not the place for Wm to float his minority view. I will revert any changes to the numbering system. Adam 02:14, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

You have not read my commnents correctly and have inaccurately represented them. I have at no stage floated any such view. In fact, if you read my comments (ALL my comments in this section), you will see that I have supported the same numbering system as used by the official National Archives, ie the Hawke is No. 23. Please read more carefully before responding to any comments. --Wm 02:37, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Hawke has been referred to as the 28th Prime Minister by many sources, the fact that the National Archives does a different way of numbering does not means it is necessarily right. I mean the Prime Minister's tenure should be reflected by the times they have served in office. Menzies for example be much rather be remembered as the 21st Prime Minister (1949-66) than his unhappy time as the 16th Prime Minister (1939-41). I don't think he would like to have these two periods jumbled together to be remembered as one. This encyclopedia is not in any way affiliated with the National Archives and therefore does not need to be written according to its standards. So it is not a matter of a minority view at all but a more efficient way of conveying information. I mean it is much easier for people to count the Prime Ministers without the need to worry if he or she has already counted this Prime Minister before.

I believe that concensus among the contributors to this page is that Hawke should be listed as the 23rd PM. I have reverted and added a footnote that explains the situation. You might like to edit the footnote to mention the alternative of 28 if counted differently. Drew Devereux 05:53, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi Drew I am having trouble finding the footnote.

I again agree with the consensus about Hawke being the 23rd not the 28th PM. I made a contribution to the debate earlier but forgot to sign it (it's there now). It is not a question of right or wrong. Americans (and some other countries) count every separate presidency, whereas Australia (and some other countries) do it the Australian way and just count the number of people who have occupied the office. Overseas, Hawke may well be referred to as the 28th Australian PM, but we ignore this numbering system in Australia, where he is always known as the 23rd PM. Surely we can make the rules about how we count our Prime Ministers (while also yielding to the different and equally valid customs other countries may have about their office-holders). JackofOz 00:05, 5 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Counting Prime Ministers is like anniversaries. You should not hold back counting an anniversary simply because it happens to look like one that has already been done. I count the Prime Ministers from the periods they were in and not as individuals simply because each time a Prime Minister leaves office signifies how much progress has been made during his time in office. Moving one number up each time there's a change of Prime Minister represents the continuation of progress. The Treasurers are being counted in periods and not as individuals in this encyclopedia. If nothing else this encyclopedia should try to be consistent with itself. I mean why should counting the Prime Ministers be different from the counting of their Treasurers. As to the response that it's ridiculous to count Alfred Deakin three times. Would it be ridiculous to count Grover Cleveland three times as US President if he had served a third non-consecutive term?

The left

I do not believe that there is any identifiable group of people called "the left" who regard Americans as universally inferior or who opposs any policies on the basis of them being "American". Although there are some who are from time to time, critical of American policy, Hawke himself is one of these and indeed, many Americans have been oppossed to their government's policies from time to time. The phrase "anti-American", as used here, is essentially meaningless. --Wm 01:48, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was the middle of the Vietnam War, duh. The left (you remember the left, surely?) was passionately anti-American. Take my word for it, I was there. Adam 02:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that those who oppossed the Vietnam war did so on a purely political basis with no conern with to the moral value and overall benefit of the policy of conducting war in Vietnam? Specifically, give a reference to a person who represents "the left" in Australia and has oppossed American policy on the basis of it being American. Please read Wikipeida article Anti-American_sentiment . Note that it is disputed. The term is an inflamatory one of limited value. What does it mean? Please provide your definition so that it may be used as a basis for re-working the disputed text. --Wm 02:29, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Also refer to the wikipedia article Left_wing. Note that the article states that the term has "no particular precision". Thus I encourage you to find some re-wording that offers some sense of precise meaning. --Wm 02:38, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that those who oppossed the Vietnam war did so on a purely political basis with no conern with to the moral value and overall benefit of the policy of conducting war in Vietnam? A meaningless question. We opposed it on all those grounds. Adam 02:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Specifically, give a reference to a person who represents "the left" in Australia and has oppossed American policy on the basis of it being American. We are talking about events more than 30 years ago. Opposition to the US war in Vietnam was the central preoccupation of the left at that time. Adam 02:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What does it mean? It means oppostion to the policies of the US government, based on a deeper opposition to the economic and political system in the US, ie (as the left saw it), opposition to US imperialism. Read some history. Adam 02:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is not an article about the history of the left. It is a passing reference in article about Hawke. But for your info, there was a "left" in the union movement, consisting of unions under the influence of the three communist parties (CPA, SPA and CPA-ML), plus various left-wing ALP unions. They supported Hawke against Nolan in 1969. But Hawke was always pro-American and pro-Israel, and soon broke with the left. This is all common knowledge and is documented in Blanche d'Alpuget's biography, which I suggest you read before making fatuous statements here. Adam 02:51, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Please provide specific references to personalities that you regard as having anti-American views from this period. It is perfectly reasonable to ask for justification for a given phrasing, as there are currently no references supplied and as I have shown, these imprecise terms are already disputed elsewhere. If you wish to provide a reference to a specific book, kindly provide page numbers as is the normal practise when supporting a specific point. I would suggest that a personality such as the Reverand Alan Walker is an interesting example of a important leader of the anti-war movement, obviously Jim Cairns is a case in point. Who were the mainstream leaders of "the left" who were anti-American, in the sense of being oppossed to the underlying economic and political system in the US? Surely such a person, who advocated a change that system, would have to be regarded as radical revolutionary. Could you please identify who the main leaders of this anti-Americanism were?

Kindly refrain from using insulting words (like "duh" and "fatuous), I am by no means convinced by your bullying tone. Please refer to the guidelines for resolving conflict and, for example, "Discuss the facts and how to express them, not the attributes of the other party.". --Wm 05:34, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

People who edit historical articles from a state of apparent total historical ignorance must expect a robust response. Have you perhaps heard of Albert Langer, Laurie Carmichael, Bill Hartley, Tom Uren, George Crawford, Jean McLean, Harry van Moorst, Bernie Taft, Norm Gallagher, Jack Mundey, Freda Brown or any of the other leading activists of the 60s left in Australia? All of them were furiously opposed to the US, its policies and its social and economic system. If you don't know this you have no business editing articles relating to the period. Adam 05:45, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You will note the Wikipedia motto. "Be Bold". I am entitled to question the article and will continue to do so. Your response should, I believe remain civil and not try to indicate your own suppossed superiority. If the current text can be justified, there is no reason why a reference to that justification cannot be included in the article. I note that your bullying tone has continued in your latest post suggesting that I "have no business editing articles relating to the period." - I do indeed have such business and no extent of bullying by you will deter me from exercising it.

I have heard of some of these people but am not aware to what extent that they all oppossed to the underlying political and economic system of the United States. Would you be able to provide quotes from Tom Uren and Jack Mundey, for example that shows that they were thus oppossed? I note that Wikipedia article on Jack Mundey does not (yet) refer to any such views. I believe that Mundey was at some stage a member of the Communist Party but am not aware of when he may have left it and also not aware the extent to which the Australian party advocated changing the American political system. Tom Uren was a WWII POW so perhaps suffered in defending at least the Australian system of government and indeed became a minister in the Whitlam government. Based on his inclusion in the list, I am increasing skeptical about the list as a whole. Are all these people really noted for anti-Americanism? I think we need to build a reference of specific quotes that indicate this. --Wm 06:31, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Adam, you have reverted three times today but seem unwilling to provide any meaningful reference that indicates that "the left" as a cohesive whole had a pre-domintanly "anti-American" view at the time in question. I offered an alternative wording which you have summarily reverted without further discussion.

Please note, your link to George Crawford appear to be incorrect.

As I have indicated, I do not accept that for example Tom Uren was anti-American in any sense of oppossing the American political system, so I am unwilling to accept your list as evidence, you need to provide a reference that gives specific information about the precise nature and extent of the alleged anti-Americanism. Without such a reference, I believe that the text as it stands is imprecise and possibly misleading. --Wm 10:06, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

OK, here we go: Uren, like all the people I named above, is a socialist. Some of them are, or were then, communists. The defining characteristic of socialists and communists is that they oppose capitalism. The US is the world's leading capitalist power. Therefore all socialists and communists oppose the US political and economic system. All socialists and communists also oppose what they call US imperialism, which they believe is a result of the operations of American capitalism. They considered the Vietnam War to be an imperialist war. In the 1960s, there were three communist parties in Australia, and there was also a socialist faction of the ALP, led by Cairns and Uren. They disagreed with each other about many things, but they all agreed in opposing the US and the Vietnam War. Between them, these groups controlled many trade unions - the Metal Workers, the Builders Laborers, the Seamen, the Wharfies, the Miners, the Transport Workers and most of the teachers unions. These unions formed a block in the ACTU, called the left. They supported Hawke for President at the 1969 ACTU Congress because they thought he was more left-wing than the other candidate, Harold Souter. This soon proved to be incorrect, but that is beside the point. These are all elementary historical facts which anyone who was around in the 60s or has read any Australian history will know. If you don't know them, you can expect to make mistakes when you try to edit Australian history articles, and when you do that you will get reverted. Adam 10:40, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You haven't provided any reference at all, all you have done is assert on the basis of labelling Uren as "socialist" that therefore he must be ipso facto, anti-American. I don't accept this and suggest that it is far too simple and misleading. For example I believe that in 1965, the Labor caucus, of which Uren was a member, supported a motion in Caucus with Whitlam and Calwell to support the bombing of Hanoi by the Americans in Vietnam.

The National Library says that Uren was "was an active member of the left wing of the ALP, maintaining opposition to the Vietnam War, conscription and nuclear testing. His chief political interests are urban affairs, the environment, veterans' affairs and security and intelligence." [1] (http://nla.gov.au/nla.ms-ms5816). This does not indicate that he was anti-American in the sense that you defined it, merely that he oppossed certain policies.

If you are able to supply specific details of anti-American statements or actions by Uren we can begin to accept that he was anti-American. It is not sufficient to claim this on the basis of your own authority. I suggest that you are unable to do this and therefore claim that your whole argument can be called into question. --Wm 14:14, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)