Talk:John McEwen

Right of veto

When Menzies retired in 1966, McEwen became the longest-serving figure in the government, and he had a right of veto over government policy

Comment: I wonder if this is the best way of putting it. It could suggest he had some formal veto power from the Constitution or wherever. That certainly wasn't the case. He had a political power in that, if the Liberal PM didn't do what McEwen wanted, he would pull his Country Party out of the Coalition. He used this threat to very effectively deny McMahon the prime ministership. Maybe "he had an effective veto over government policy"? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Caretaker, interim or acting PM?

@JackofOz: I'm more curious (going by the infobox & lead) how McEwin was serving as both prime minister & deputy prime minister, simulataneously. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I think that you might be mistaken, @GoodDay. John McEwen was (caretaker) Prime Minister until 10 January 1968. His successor, John Gorton, was appointed Prime Minister on that day and, in turn, Gorton appointed McEwen the first (formal) Deputy Prime Minister. There was, presumably, a short period on that day when was neither Prime Minister nor Deputy Prime Minister. McEwen was also the de facto Deputy Prime Minister under Harold Holt, but the office had not yet been formally 'invented' so he cannot be said to have held it during his short term as Prime Minister. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:08, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

We have a problem then as he's described here as the 18th prime minister. I noticed this possible mistake in the intros & infoboxes of several Australian prime ministers, who are fully or partially described as acting, interim or caretaker prime ministers at the Prime Minister of Australia article. The bios aren't lining up with the office article. GoodDay (talk) 19:11, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I'm afraid that I don't know enough about numbering practice to add to that discussion, but perhaps we could make a decision here as to which term to use for these three individuals, for consistency: acting, interim or caretaker. I have no real strong feelings, though would probably veer away from acting, as it does sound slightly more official than the other two and it isn't commonly used, as far as I can tell. Interim and caretaker sound pretty much the same to me, but if I had to choose one then I'd probably go for caretaker. I can't really put into words why I prefer it though! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:25, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Well, it would appear that instead of 18th Prime Minister of Australia in the infobox & intro. McEwen should have it as Interim Prime Minister of Australia, in the intro & infobox. However, that then would throw off the numbering of the others. GoodDay (talk) 19:34, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Hmm. I notice that the official website of the Australian Prime Minister describes Scott Morrison as the 30th, so perhaps it is common practice (unlike with US Presidents) to count acting/interim/caretaker Prime Ministers in totals. By the way, do you have an opinion on "acting" v "interim" v "caretaker"? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:39, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

My goal is just to create consistency between those bios & the PM article, either way. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it would be good to get a consensus on this matter (or, more specifically, on these two matters). I've sent out the bat signal to check that there aren't any other editors who want to voice their thoughts before we come to a conclusion. Like you, however, I'm not going to lose any sleep over this! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 19:55, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

For the record, @JackofOz has voiced their support here for "interim", but not in any infobox or template, just in the main text. They also called the trio "...fully Prime Ministers". I completely agree with their assessment and would be happy to use "interim". FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:00, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

We gotta centralise this discussion at Prime Minister of Australia with links to said discussion, to the affected bios. GoodDay (talk) 20:03, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Can't we centralise the discussion here? Since it's already the longest one and I've already sent out links to this page? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 20:13, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

Cool & I also mentioned the inconsistencies at the Australian noticeboard. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a fact sheet here about the caretaker conventions, with a section on caretaker prime ministers. It specifically lists Fraser, Page, Forde and McEwen as caretaker prime ministers, the latter three for their entire term. They are officially sworn in as prime minister so their term dates and numbering should reflect that. Interim prime minister just means the same thing as caretaker, both can be used (for example the National Museum of Australia refers to Page and Fraser as "interim prime minister"). Acting prime minister is a different thing, when the officeholder is not sworn in and just performs the functions of the role while the prime minister is overseas, on leave or unwell. --Canley (talk) 23:15, 19 August 2021 (UTC)

I think this distinction is best made in prose not in the infobox. They were all official prime ministers and they are always numbered as such, and from my experience usually not highlighted in lists of officeholders. They all undertook official actions ranging in significance - Forde attending Curtin's funeral, McEwen discussing foreign policy following Holt's memorial service, Page speaking on the floor of parliament. For Page and Forde calling them caretakers is also kind of retrospective, as they were a real chance of continuing on as PM. I would also oppose listing Fraser's first term separately as I don't think that's something other sources do. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 00:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I agree (strongly) with Ivar the Boneful. I also dispute the (brief) mention in the MAD fact sheet above relevant to this situation ("considered to have been purely caretaker prime ministers") - if that language were put in a Wikipedia article, I'd be tagging it with "by who?". A Trove search for "Forde" "Prime Minister" in July 1945 turns up 1862 results, which overwhelmingly just refer to him being sworn in as Prime Minister (apart from references to him being Acting PM before he was sworn in). Repeating the same search with "caretaker" added winds up with 4 results, none of them using the term in this context. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@The Drover's Wife:, I found the words caretaker, interim, acting at the Prime Minister of Australia article. This sparked my curiosity, when I never seen those words in any of the related bios. GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Yes, you've said this, but if you don't have anything further to add best not clog up the talk page threads. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:13, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I don't think that this discussion is clogging up any talk page threads and I thank GoodDay for starting it. I also think that there is a clear consensus:

• To number Earle Page, Frank Forde, John McEwen and Malcolm Fraser like any other Prime Minister, as the official website of the Australian Prime Minister seemingly does.
• To not to use the term "acting", which as Canley put into better words than I could, suggests a different thing.
• To, if we decide to use "caretaker" or "interim", only use these terms in the text and not in infoboxes etc.

The question now turns on whether to use "caretaker", "interim", neither or another word to describe these premierships. JackofOz has voiced their support for "interim", while Canley, Skyring and I have said that both "caretaker" and "interim" would be acceptable. Both Ivar the Boneful and The Drover's Wife have, I believe, voiced their support for neither. And, finally, @Skyring has voted against using "interim" here. I hope that this is an acceptable sum up. Let me know if I've missed anything or got anything wrong. Thanks! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 11:26, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

What shall we delete (if at all) from the prime minister article? GoodDay (talk) 16:15, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I suppose that it would be the terms "caretaker" and "interim" in the 'Acting Prime Ministers and succession' section (though I see no reason to remove the three examples altogether) and the yellow colouring and use of "(Caretaker)" in the 'List' section. I added those features to the article, so I don't foresee it upsetting anyone. If I had to pick a side, I'd choose to keep them, as I think that they help our readers understand the manner of these Prime Minister's appointments and why their terms are so short, but I'm more than happy to go with the consensus (if anyone can find one)! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

@FollowTheTortoise: - the second two sentences of the "Acting Prime Ministers and succession" section is plainly factually wrong as to Page and Forde, as the links I shared above as an example make very obvious for Forde, if less wrong about McEwen (who was not appointed "interim PM" but did accept the role on essentially an interim basis). The cited source is just factually wrong, too, and is a poor-quality source for the claim considering the alternatives we have available - it's essentially some rando SBS journalist's opinion. The "features" in the list don't "help our readers understand the manner of these Prime Minister's appointments" - they're just wrong. The article really needs to be cleaned up to stick to actual facts where those three are concerned. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:06, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Just to be clear, is it the terms "caretaker"/"interim" that you take issue with, or something more fundamental? And perhaps we could replace the SBS source with the fact sheet that Canley has linked above, if we are still to include the fact that these Prime Ministers were appointed after their predecessors deaths? FollowTheTortoise (talk) 22:28, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

The terms "caretaker"/"interim". I also think the fact sheet is highly debatable - the claim they were "generally considered to be" interim/caretaker is manifestly untrue in terms of contemporaneous sources for Forde and Page and cites no sources for believing that of later historical scholarship. We can absolutely include the fact that these Prime Ministers were appointed after their predecessors deaths, but our discussion of the circumstances of that appointment needs to be based in actual fact (or any opinion cited to someone whose opinion we might care about). The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:36, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

That makes sense to me! The consensus seems to be leaning against using those terms at all, which I'd be happy with, but I'd just like to leave it a little longer so that we can hear anybody's voice who hasn't spoken up yet. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 22:45, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I don't mind using interim or caretaker in the text - as appropriate o a case by case basis - but not in infoboxes. Once they are commissioned, they are the Prime Minister, and that's all there is to it. --Pete (talk) 16:19, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification! I've edited my comment. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 17:10, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

There's a clear difference between caretaker and interim. All PMs who call a general election become caretaker PMs for the duration of the election campaign. There are now explicit written Caretaker Conventions that make it clear what a caretaker PM can and cannot do, but there was always at least an unwritten rule about these things. They cannot make major appointments, for example. Fraser was unusual in that he was a caretaker PM at the very start of his tenure (11 Nov 75) until the result of the December 75 election was clear. Then he was caretaker again before the 1977, 1980 and 1983 elections.

What's different about people who have been appointed PM following the death of the incumbent is that it has been commonly understood that the relevant party would make a permanent choice soon, and probably a different person, but the nation cannot do without a PM in the interim, so in that sense it's only a temporary, interim appointment. But despite that, for however long it may go for, the person appointed (interim) PM can do all the things that any other PM can do. He could get the Queen to agree to the next governor-general, for example. This is starkly different from a PM in a caretaker role, and that's why "caretaker" should not be used for interim prime ministers. "Interim" is the only appropriate word. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:51, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts! That was really interesting to read. FollowTheTortoise (talk) 16:12, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

May I make a suggestion. We continue this discussion at the Australian prime minister article. At least the bit about what should & shouldn't be in that article? GoodDay (talk) 21:45, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

This discussion is already linked from everywhere relevant, and it needs to stop randomly jumping around talk pages. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:42, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Section paragraph-in-question

From the prime minister's article

"If the Prime Minister were to die, then the Deputy Prime Minister would be appointed Prime Minister by the Governor-General, until the government votes for another member to be its leader. This happened when Harold Holt disappeared in 1967, when John McEwen was appointed interim Prime Minister. On the other two occasions that the Prime Minister has died in office, in 1939 and 1945, Earle Page and Frank Forde, respectively, were appointed caretaker Prime Minister." GoodDay (talk) 08:09, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

The section makes a distinction that does not exist between the "interim" McEwen and the "caretaker" Page and Forde, which all the more peculiar because the only difference between them is that Page and Forde were not just assuming the role until someone else was elected but failed to gain support when they attempted to retain the role. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

All 'three' individuals mentioned, are listed as prime ministers in their bios & not interim or caretaker prime ministers. GoodDay (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

It also seems to be incorrectly implying McEwen was deputy prime minister and the others were not. All were de facto deputy PM's but none were gazetted as deputy PM at the time they became PM. I'm not sure about the current phrasing as it suggests an obligation. I would go for something like "on each of the three occasions a PM has died, the deputy PM has been appointed as a successor with the understanding they would resign if their party/coalition elected a different leader". Ivar the Boneful (talk) 09:43, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I had deleted the words interim & caretaker from the section, but (check article's history) another editor reverted me. Thus the discussion we're having. GoodDay (talk) 09:59, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I reverted, since the user had no explanation for his edits beyond reverting for the sake of it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:40, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Something is amiss. I'm looking over the Prime Minister of Australia article & I don't see where you removed the words 'interim' & 'caretaker'. You deleted the "Former Prime Ministers" section. I'm talkin' about the middle paragraph in the "Acting Prime Ministers" section. GoodDay (talk) 18:32, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, was confused - have self-reverted. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:29, 22 August 2021 (UTC)

I've just (again) removed the terminologies interim & caretaker from the article-in-question. Hopefully this time, Skyring/Pete won't revert. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Apologies for not replying for a couple of days. but I'm more than happy about the current state of the Prime Minister of Australia article, which now doesn't use either term. And I've also noticed the discrepancy between the Parliamentary Education Office source saying that John McEwen was Deputy Prime Minister in 1967 and Wikipedia stating that the job didn't exist at that point (Wikipedia being where I got my knowledge of this from).

This book by Vernon Bogdanor (on page 86) says that McEwen was deputy prime minister and that he was appointed caretaker prime minister (all of these terms are in lowercase in the source). This discussion is effectively closed now, but I just thought that it was interesting to note! FollowTheTortoise (talk) 23:36, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

References