Liberal Movement (Australia)

The Liberal Movement (LM) was a South Australian political party which existed from 1973 to 1976, and was a forerunner to the Australian Democrats.
The LM was initially organised in 1972 by former premier Steele Hall, as an internal group of the Liberal and Country League (LCL), in response to a perceived resistance to sought reform within the LCL. When tensions heightened between the LCL's conservative wing and the LM after the March 1973 state election, it was established in its own right, as a progressive liberal party, on 2 April 1973.
When still part of the league, it had eleven state parliamentarians. On its own, it was reduced to three parliamentarians − Hall and Robin Millhouse in the lower house and Martin Cameron in the upper house. At the 1974 federal election Hall won a Senate seat and David Boundy retained his South Australia seat for the LM. At the 1975 state election, Millhouse and Boundy retained their seats, while John Carnie won a second seat and Cameron retained his seat in the upper house, bringing the party to a peak of five parliamentarians.
In the 1974 federal election, it succeeded in having Hall elected to the Australian Senate with a primary vote of 10 per cent in South Australia. It built upon this in the 1975 state election, gaining almost a fifth of the total vote and an additional member. However, the non-Labor parties narrowly failed to dislodge the incumbent Dunstan Labor government. That result, together with internal weaknesses, led in 1976 to the LM's being re-absorbed into the LCL, which by then had become the South Australian Division of the Liberal Party of Australia. The non-Labor forces again failed at the 1977 state election but succeeded in winning government for one term at the 1979 state election.
A segment of the LM, led by former state attorney-general Robin Millhouse, did not rejoin the Liberals, but instead formed a new party—the New LM. This party, combined with the Australia Party—under the invited leadership of Don Chipp—formed the nucleus of the Australian Democrats which aspired to a balance of power in the federal Senate and up to four state upper houses for three decades. The LM and its successor parties gave voice to what is termed "small-l liberalism" in Australia.
Party system.
Before parties became established in the Australian colonies in the later 19th century, all members of the colonial parliaments were independents, occasionally labelled as "liberal" or "conservative", amongst other terms. With the advent of Labor, these groups combined to form anti-Labor parties. "Liberal", in the Australian context, refers to what could be described as classical liberalism, and is distant from the modern meaning that the word has acquired in the United States and some other countries. As a train of thought, Australian liberalism has been less rooted in any defined ideology and more in pragmatism and opposition to Labor. Liberalism in Australia represents the centre-right of the political spectrum, while Labor represents the centre-left.
The first Labor party in South Australia was the United Labor Party in 1891, born out of a trade union association that recommended and supported trade unionist candidates. In response, the National Defence League (NDL) was born two years later. In 1909, the NDL combined with the Liberal and Democratic Union and the Farmers and Producers Political Union to form the Liberal Union, later known as the Liberal Federation. The ULP transformed into the Labor Party in 1910, and has been known by this name ever since. A separate Country Party subsequently emerged, representing rural interests, but this was assimilated back into the conservative side of politics with the formation of the Liberal and Country League (LCL) in 1932. The South Australian party system has not deviated from this two-party divide, and all other parties gained negligible representation or influence, until the emergence of smaller parties such as the Australian Democrats in the late 20th century, and the Greens and Family First Party in the 21st century.
Liberal representation.
Political scientists Neal Blewett and Dean Jaensch characterised the LCL as a strange amalgamation of differing groups: "the Adelaide 'establishment', the yeoman proprietary (farmers and regional workers), and the Adelaide middle class". Of these groups, the middle class was the most electorally depressed, both in parliament and within the party itself, owing to a 2:1 ratio favouring regional areas both in electoral legislation and the party organisation. The establishment influenced the party with its financial backing, while the yeoman proprietary was the most numerous. Only in 1956 did the urban middle class achieve parliamentary representation through Robin Millhouse, who was elected to the urban middle class seat of Mitcham.
Millhouse was a vocal advocate of his broader constituency, championing their case in a party dominated by rural conservatives. He wrote a paper on the 'Liberal Case for Electoral Reform', arguing for a fairer electoral system, as it was biased against voters resident in the capital city, Adelaide, whether they be progressive or conservative, Liberal or Labor. Many younger urban middle class voters, who would have normally been attracted to the LCL, were abandoning the party for Labor owing to their dissatisfaction with the malapportioned electoral system known as the 'Playmander'. But this concerned the rural conservatives little, who hoped to retain their hold on power through the present system, which included a Legislative Council where suffrage was based on land ownership, resulting in a body dominated by the ruling class and the rural landholders, and a 16–4 LCL majority. Millhouse's paper was quickly ignored.
The LCL had governed, primarily under the stead of Sir Thomas Playford, for 32 years, and finally lost to Labor in 1965. A year and a half later, when Playford retired, Steele Hall was elected to replace him. A young farmer from a rural constituency, Hall had never conflicted with the party line, and was expected to uphold the existing LCL principles, having spoken out in support of the Playmander and the restrictive Legislative Council before. However, when the LCL was returned to office in 1968 under his leadership, with the help of malapportionment, Hall was under pressure. Labor had led the LCL 52.0 to 43.8% on primary votes, but owing to the Playmander, both ended with 19 seats and an independent supported the LCL and returned them to power. Large protests against the Playmander broke out, and there were strong calls for reform.
The LCL had routinely ignored such protests before, but Hall's course differed from what was expected. He appointed Millhouse his Attorney-General, and continued a raft of social reform that had begun under the previous Labor government. This was opposed by some conservatives within the party; lines began to be drawn, and factions began to appear. Hall commented in the party's newsletter that "too many people see the LCL as a party tied to conservative traditions. We must show voters that we can move with the times, that we are 'with it'."
Electoral reform.
The level of malapportionment had grown to a level in excess of 3:1 in favour of rural areas, and Hall, having won the 1968 state election on 46 per cent of the two-party-preferred vote, committed himself to a fairer electoral system. Previously 39 members were elected: 13 from metropolitan Adelaide and 26 from the country. Hall's first attempt for reform was a system with 45 seats and 20 from the country; this proposal received scorn from both Labor and the rural councillors, and was seen as not going far enough by the former and going too far by the latter. A second proposal, for 47 seats with 19 in the country, was adopted with bipartisan support in the House of Assembly, but encountered opposition in the Legislative Council. The new system would make an LCL win near-impossible at the coming 1970 state election, and Hall and the LCL were aware of it. For his weakening of rural constituencies, Hall became an enemy to those councillors who stood in defence of the previous system. Hall saw the political situation as untenable and felt the LCL needed reform to cope with the removal of an artificial situation.
Labor's leader, Don Dunstan, also introduced a bill for reform of the Legislative Council, which sought to remove its wage and property based qualifications and instil adult suffrage. Hall himself stated he would approve the bill if it included a clause guaranteeing that the Legislative Council could only be abolished through a referendum. Dunstan agreed, but Hall's own party split on the issue. The bill passed the House of Assembly with Labor support, but failed in the Legislative Council where the LCL's rural conservatives dominated its restricted electoral base.
Behind the votes in parliament was a personal antagonism between Hall and Ren DeGaris, the leader of the LCL in the Legislative Council. DeGaris, who was elected to the council in 1962, was a staunch defender of its franchise and electoral boundaries. The two were the "de facto" leaders of the party's two factions; Hall represented the urban-based progressives, and DeGaris the rural-based conservatives. The conflict between the two extended beyond politics and on to a personal level, contributing to the polarisation of views within the LCL and making it difficult for an internal compromise to be reached on the issue of electoral reform.
After the LCL lost government in 1970, primarily owing to the electoral reform, Hall managed to be re-elected as leader. He convinced a majority of the party's membership that reform was needed, and sought to remove the influence that the party's representatives in the Legislative Council held. When the Dunstan government again introduced a bill to introduce universal suffrage to the council, Hall gained the support of 7 out of 20 members in the Assembly, but only 2 of 16 LCL members in the Legislative Council supported the bill. Internally, there was much opposition to any electoral reform when the matter was debated at party conferences.
The conservatives then moved against Hall, putting forward party proposals to lessen the influence of its parliamentary leader. Liberal parties in Australia had long held to a tradition of the separation of houses, independence of members, and the ability of the parliamentary leader to choose his own cabinet. The rural councillors sought to preserve their power, and demanded that cabinet positions not be decided by the leader, but elected by the parliamentary party as a whole. As this would include the Legislative Council, dominated by its rural membership, Hall's support among moderate Liberals would be overwhelmed by the councillors' inclusion. Hall privately told Legislative Council Chairman David Brookman that he could not work with DeGaris and that he would resign if he was not allowed to choose his cabinet.
After the parliamentary party agreed on this issue 12–8, Hall resigned the leadership on 16 March 1972, stating that "I cannot continue to lead a Party that will not follow; I cannot lead a Party which has lost its idealism and which has forgotten that its purpose for existence is to govern successfully for the welfare of all South Australians. Our Party is still deeply cleft by the persuasive influence of a number of its members in the Legislative Council." Later in the speech, he said "Over the last three years I have been subject to a great deal of disloyalty on a continuing basis ... I had hoped this afternoon to move a motion of no confidence in the Government; instead, I found out Party had moved a vote of no confidence in itself." Premier Dunstan, with whom Hall had never had amiable relations, crossed the floor of the house and shook Hall's hand in a gesture of solidarity. Hall said he "was knifed" and said the conservatives' actions were "a clear example of how deeply the wooden horses of the Legislative Council have entrenched themselves in the ranks of the Assembly membership". The LCL President Ian McLachlan put on a brave face, saying "Mr Hall had some personal problems with the party, but these differences do not make a divided party" but he was quoted the next day as saying that the proposal was mooted to gauge Hall's power. The obscure and low-key conservative Bruce Eastick was installed as the new leader, as some more prominent figures such as Millhouse were seen as too sympathetic to Hall. In the meantime, there was a strong reaction to Hall's departure among the public, and segments of the LCL, notably the youth wings, demonstrated against the events and made motions of objection. Hall had expected to become a normal backbencher, but the groundswell of support prompted a change of heart.
Formation.
Hall initially sought to appeal to the State Council of the LCL. Although the body had no binding authority over the parliamentary caucus, which chose the leader, Hall and his followers saw it as an opportunity for a media victory. The motion went narrowly against Hall, but it generated much attention and potential embarrassment for the conservatives.
After this, he thought of establishing his own separate party, citing small opinion polls that supported this action, but Ian Wilson, the former member for the federal Division of Sturt, convinced him to stay within the LCL and bring about internal change. Strong support emerged from within the party for Hall's stand, particularly from its youth wing, the Young Liberals. On 21 March 1972, a faction, but closer to a "party within a party" was formed: the New Liberals. On 28 March it was renamed the Liberal Movement. The conservatives strongly criticised Hall and his new movement, accusing them of undermining Eastick, disrupting the party and being disloyal.
It quickly gained support within the LCL's membership, capturing a number of party branches and began preselecting its own members. Robin Millhouse was a member of the faction, and served as the deputy leader of both the LCL and the LM. Thanks to the electoral reform that had occurred, with more urban electoral districts to contest, the urban-based LM greatly increased its parliamentary representation, with seven members in the House of Assembly (including Hall, Millhouse and future Premiers David Tonkin and Dean Brown), three in the Legislative Council, and one in the Australian House of Representatives (Ian Wilson). Soon there were factional clashes during parliamentary debate, and combative television debates. One LCL branch president publicly called Hall a "traitor". The LM managed to worry the conservatives by managing to seize control of some rural branches within electorates held by strongly anti-LM representatives, including that of DeGaris. The conservatives tried to remove Hall's endorsement for his seat, but failed. Several bitterly fought pre-selection battles followed. As a former premier, Hall was much more proficient than Eastick at dealing with the press, and used his skills to generate more media publicity, prompting Eastick to claim bias.
The LM sought to seize control of the LCL agenda by winning key positions on the state executive at the annual general meeting in September, but this was difficult as the malapportionment towards rural groups was entrenched at party level, and because the conservatives had anticipated the LM's plans. The LM President Alex Perryman challenged McLachlan for the party presidency and in a high-profile contest received 47% of the vote in a narrow defeat. He received around 90% among urban delegates and around 33% of the rural votes, the latter figure shocking the conservatives. The LM later generated more publicity by inquiring about alleged impropriety in the balloting process.
The LM's policies were generally progressive, and Hall himself stated that "we had no major differences with the written philosophies of the LCL". The LM's colour, purple, was described by observers as "LCL blue with a dash of Labor red", signifying the faction's location on the political spectrum. The LM was less concerned with creating differing policy as it was taking over and reforming the LCL; however, on the electoral reform front, the LM started by calling for the Legislative Council to be devoid of ministers. Worried by the LM, conservatives in the LCL tried to change the party rules to prevent members from criticising the organisation in public, and enforce discipline. This backfired as the LM exploited it to portray the conservatives as repressive, and the media also viewed it negatively, and the move was put on hold. The non-Labor forces, in their disunity, were in a poor position to challenge the dominance of charismatic Premier Dunstan. The LM itself contained two poorly defined internal groups: moderates, concerned with the inequalities of the electoral systems and the LCL's aging image; and radicals, who espoused the aforementioned in addition to the desire for wide-ranging social reform. Some of the latter felt Hall was the most progressive option available, but not progressive enough. Nevertheless, the LM had generated a large amount of campaign funds and had great name recognition; Hall was also favoured in opinions as a better leader than Eastick by a threefold factor. They cited such figures to portray themselves as the main threat to Labor and justify why they were the direction the LCL needed to take. Late in the year the LM received another boost when Wilson regained the seat of Sturt for the Liberal Party at the 1972 federal election, making much of his LM membership.
In the 1973 state election, the LM largely ran a separate campaign from the LCL as a whole. The majority of the LCL's metropolitan candidates were also within the LM, and it was hoped that enough seats would be gained so that not only would the LCL return to power, but that the LM would be able to overpower the conservative faction in the House of Assembly and re-elect Hall as leader. To do this, they needed to capture at least three marginal Labor seats in Adelaide. This also meant the conservatives in the LCL would be better off losing to Labor if they wanted to maintain their hold on the party, as Labor's vulnerable seats were in all in the city, and a Labor loss meant a LM gain. The LCL campaign chairperson explicitly said that she would prefer losing if it meant keeping control of the party. While the LM ran an innovative campaign, the LCL itself faltered, losing support in the country to a separate Country Party and to Labor in metropolitan Adelaide. One LM seat held by a rural member was lost to the Country Party. The LM were branded by the LCL conservatives as being the reason behind the LCL's defeat. The LM saw itself as a more modern and appropriate alternative to the LCL, more in tune with urban mainstream, but there was no evidence that urban LM candidates were more popular than conservative LCL candidates in Adelaide. LM members made up the majority of urban LCL candidates, but were unable to wrest any Labor seats in Adelaide.
Labor's convincing win was not unexpected, particularly as infighting in the LCL had been ongoing for over a year. Friction was present throughout the campaign as well as before it, particularly as much of the donations were given directly to the LM. In the months before the election LCL members had thrown punches in the corridors of Parliament House. Internal battles between conservatives and LM members for party pre-selection were keenly contested. Around half of the LCL candidates were LM supporters and avoided mention of the LCL and its conservative leader Bruce Eastick in their pamphlets. Some of the LM faction candidates instead trumpeted Hall as their leader and printed books detailing their policies. There was also an incident where a LM function celebrating Wilson's win in the 1972 federal election clashed with Eastick's main policy speech. Eastick and his conservatives arrived at Wilson's dinner after they finished campaigning for the night, but then walked out when Wilson was delivering a speech calling for the LCL to be more tolerant of the diverse opinions within the party. Labor ran a sedate campaign, but made much of the internal LCL divisions.
Split.
Despite the LCL's defeat, the failure of the LM to gain internal supremacy over the conservatives was seen by the latter as a vindication of their policies. Pressure from the LCL's leader, Bruce Eastick, who called on the LM to disband, and the conservative wing of the party, saw machinations against the LM. Hall reiterated the LM's intention to continue, but Millhouse was removed as the LCL deputy leader in 1973, and pressure began to be mounted on the faction, which did not have any members on the frontbench; Hall did not pursue a position in the shadow ministry. Tension continued as rumours spread claiming that the LCL State Council was contemplating the forbidding and vetoing of LM members from representing the party in elections. While Hall and Martin Cameron responded by publicly vowing to stand firm, several of their LM colleagues were ambivalent when asked about the intentions if the LM were no longer tolerated within the LCL. However, Heini Becker left the LM.
On 23 March, a motion was passed at the state council that allowed it to deny membership to those who belonged to "outside political organisations", and the LM was subsequently declared to be one. Strangely, an LCL member could also be a member of the Communist Party of Australia, but not the LM. A motion by LM members to also declare the League of Rights an outside political organisation failed. The LCL conservatives were confident the LM would capitulate and reintegrate, as third parties had never been successful in South Australia. At first, LM members tried to have their banning from the LCL deemed illegal, but this failed.
It was not expected that the LM would split to form a separate party. But before it was established, Hall promptly resigned from the LCL, declaring it "hypocritical and decadent". Martin Cameron quickly followed, and Robin Millhouse consulted with members from his constituency before agreeing to resign from the LCL. Ian Wilson, who had earlier managed to convince Hall not to form a separate party, tried in vain to sway him to remain with the LCL and focus on reforming it from within. He wanted to shut down the LM in an attempt to limit the damage to the party, believing that "political groups come and go, but the ideals we aim for will never change". All other LCL-LM members did not follow; three lower house members including Tonkin and Brown, Wilson in the federal parliament, and two MLCs all stayed in the LCL. David Tonkin stated that "every one of those Liberals who resign from the League is making it more and more certain that the League will remain just as it is".
A number of LCL branches remained with the LM, and there were mass resignations from the LCL on the whole. Eastick was relatively unconcerned: the LCL had a massive membership of over 30,000 and the LM's split did little to dent it—Eastick admitted 200 individual resignations. In the meantime, the LCL tried to introduce a requirement for members to make "pledge" that they were not aligned with "an outside political body". This prompted a second wave of resignations, notably from sections of the Young Liberal Movement. Despite its leader's show of confidence, many in the LCL were concerned that the expulsion of LM elements had apparently backfired; it also prompted some disillusioned parliamentarians to suggest that rural and urban elements in the LCL could not coexist.
The new party was formally announced on 2 April after an LM convention. As the LM had already begun establishing an infrastructure while in the LCL, it was able to pick up momentum readily, presenting itself as a centrist moderate party, but it was never able to shed its reliance on Hall.
As Hall and Millhouse were both competent parliamentary performers, it was widely acknowledged in the media that they outperformed the LCL in providing an effective opposition. In one parliamentary division, with the entirety of the ALP and LCL on one side of the house and the LM members on the other, Millhouse took one of many opportunities to taunt Eastick and damage the LCL, labelling him "Dunstan lover!" The South Australian media, which had earlier warmed to Premier Dunstan, then focused their attention on the LM and gave the fledgling party much-needed publicity.
The primary instigator for the creation of the LM in 1972 had been based around the lack of electoral reform. The electoral system had been expected to continue to return rural LCL members in the Legislative Council, yet at the 1973 state election Labor had, through the mass registration of new voters for the council vote, managed to gain two seats, giving a council of 14 LCL, 6 Labor. As half the council was elected at each election, Labor only had to retain their vote to gain an additional two seats at the 1975 state election, and a minor rise in it would see additional council seats fall to them. It was increasingly plausible that Labor would be able to gain a majority in the Legislative Council within a decade and then carry through their goal of abolishing it, and push through any electoral legislation it so wished.
To the LCL, this was a dangerous situation, and seeing a need to avoid it, they compromised: their position abruptly changed to being in favour of wholesale reform of the Legislative Council. When Dunstan put forward bills to reform it, the LCL relented, and Eastick convinced the LCL councillors to let them pass, conditional on amendments to the legislation. These were a minor change to the particular proportional system used to elect the councillors, and that it remained non compulsory to vote in the council. The new council would eventually have 22 members, with half elected each election from a multi-member constituency covering the entirety of the state. Hall attacked the LCL for its sudden change in stance on reform, and managed to see the first LM policy become law with the lowering of the council suffrage age to 18.
The reform legislation for the Legislative Council was not to take effect until the next election, and the death of LCL MLC Henry Kemp necessitated a by-election for the council district of Southern on 11 August 1973. Southern was an ultra-safe rural LCL seat, and Labor declined to stand in the by-election. It was contested by the LCL, the LM, a separate Country Party and the Australia Party. The three non-LCL parties agreed on favourable preference deals in the hope of one of them displacing the LCL. The LM gained 29 per cent of the vote, and the LCL candidate, John Burdett, won by a 4 per cent margin once preferences had been distributed.
At the start of 1974, the LCL had undertaken some progressive reforms. They brought in a less conservative membership at the grassroots level, although the old guard was still prominent in parliamentary roles. They tried to broach the possibility of reintegrating the LM. Wilson and the new executive director of the LCL, John Vial were at the forefront, but the LM was optimistic about its future and refused unless the LCL changed leaders and allowed for explicitly separate urban and rural factions, which did not happen.
Elections and support.
Federal election 1974.
In order to give the LM national exposure, Hall decided to stand for the Australian Senate at the 1974 federal election. Another objective was to allow Millhouse and Cameron to become more prominent at state level and dispel the established perception of the LM as a Hall party. The move was a risk as failure would have left the LM's main drawcard out of the spotlight entirely until a state election which was not due for another two years, but Hall said the party had no future unless it could gain national stature. Another possible problem was that the media could have lost interest in the LM at a state level regardless of whether Hall won a senate position. However it was a rare opportunity, because the election followed a double dissolution (the first since 1951), meaning that all Senate seats were up for election, and thus a candidate needed only 9.1% of the vote (after preferences) to win a seat, compared to 16.7% for an ordinary half senate election.
The battle between the LCL and the LM was not seen as a large part of the national campaign, as South Australia was only a small part of the nation and most of the marginal seats that would determine the outcome were in other states. The LM gained 9.9 per cent of the vote in the Senate and Hall was elected in his own right, without the assistance of preferences. In the House of Representatives, the LM gained 8.4 per cent of the vote across the 12 South Australian seats, ranging from a high of 18 per cent in metropolitan Boothby to 1.6 per cent in rural Angas. Fortunately for Hall and the LM, the senate election resulted in Labor and the Liberal-Country Party coalition holding 29 seats each, and Hall was one of two crossbenchers who held the balance of power. The media made much of Hall's position as a powerbroker at federal level, and the Liberals responded to him in a hostile manner; for his part, Hall continued to persistently attack them as outmoded and lambasted them over the matter of electoral reform.
Hall had abandoned his rural Yorke Peninsula-based seat of Goyder to stand for the Senate, and at the 1974 Goyder state by-election the LM were concerned about how their vote would stand without the assistance of its prominent incumbent and in an area outside their urban base; the LCL had always won the seat easily. The campaign was robust, with strong accusations being traded as what was previously a safe seat became evenly poised and the subject of frantic electioneering. Surprisingly, as the LM was an urban movement, they polled 46 per cent of the vote, which was enough for David Boundy to comfortably win the seat for the LM, with the help of Country Party preferences; in fact the LM two-party preferred vote was 62.6%. Despite most of its preferences flowing to the LM, the Country Party attacked the LM for perceived hypocrisy as they had run in a rural seat despite calling for the anti-Labor forces to be separated into urban and rural divisions. This continued to be a source of tension, as the LM continued to campaign in rural seats, prompting the Country Party to threaten to deny them preferences. The LM triumph embarrassed the LCL, and Eastick survived a leadership challenge from Heini Becker in the aftermath. Over the next year, the LM focused on building the party machinery.
State election 1975.
At the 1975 state election the LM had ambitions of becoming the largest non-Labor party. The campaign was focused primarily on accusations of mismanagement of the economy by Labor, with the LM seeking to positioning itself between the Liberals and Labor, as the centre-ground of South Australian politics. Advertisements attacked the Liberal Party for being a conservative party, and Labor for its perceived socialism and poor economic record. At the time, inflation and unemployment was increasing. The LM slogan was "Vote LM—You know it's right". Despite now being a federal senator, Hall was still synonymous with the LM at state level and he was central in the party's advertising. The momentum was against Labor, and it was expected that the election could come down to whether Labor would retain their marginal urban seats. The LM proposed to the Liberals to have a joint candidate in the marginal metropolitan seat of Gilles—which required a two-party preferred swing of 6%—to maximise their chances. The Liberals agreed but wanted the joint candidate to stand in Unley, and no agreement was reached.
Millhouse, now the State Parliamentary Leader of the LM, announced the LM's policy for the 1975 state election at the Adelaide Town Hall on 2 July. He outlined the LM's plans for economic rejuvenation: an end to compulsory unionism, budget and tax cuts, and measures to curb rising inflation and cost of living. Social policy included proposals for an early form of multiculturalism and promotion of 'cultural diversity' and bilingualism. Energy policy appealed to a new generation of environmentalists, and promoted conservation and promotion of solar power. He slammed the proposed City of Monarto as a 'monument to socialist folly'.
In the lower house, the LM retained both of their seats (Millhouse and Boundy), but won no new seats. Contesting 45 of the 47 seats, the LM commanded almost a fifth (18.2 per cent) of the vote in the lower house and the combined non-Labor forces gained 50.8 per cent of the two-party-preferred total. The LM was more effective in the city, recording 20.2% of the urban vote and 13.4% in rural areas. The party made several formerly safe Liberal seats marginal (including that of its leader, Eastick where they captured 20.3% in the rural district of Light). The LM withstood a concerted push by the Liberals to oust Millhouse from Mitcham, and retained Goyder. They were also strong in those seats held by LM members who did not break away during the split but stayed with the LCL. However, preferences did not flow as the non-Labor parties had wished, with up to 20 per cent of LM second-preferences flowing to Labor instead of the Liberals or Country Party.
In the upper house, the LM won two seats. They thus gained one seat, with Cameron joined by John Carnie. With the new proportional system in the Legislative Council after the electoral reforms, the LM captured 18.8% of the vote to end with 2 of the 11 seats available. This was enough to allow Labor and the LM to join together and sidestep conservative Liberal opposition in the upper house.
The Liberals, having suffered a 12 per cent reduction in their metropolitan primary vote, and gained their lowest result, quickly dumped Eastick, who was an unimpressive parliamentary performer and seen as an obstacle to reintegration with the LM, as leader. Tonkin became the new leader, the first Liberal leader from a metropolitan seat. The federal Liberal Party was rattled by the strength of the LM, and tried to reintegrate them. Hall was offered a high position in the Liberal senate ticket if he rejoined, and a position in cabinet if the Liberals defeated the federal Labor government. The LM regarded its first state electoral performance as impressive, and optimistic with their future, they flatly rejected the overtures. However, they had also gone into debt to fund their election campaign. Millhouse also found it harder to dominate the Liberals and seize the momentum in parliamentary debate when proceedings resumed; he found Tonkin a much more formidable opponent than Eastick.
Federal election 1975.
The second consecutive double dissolution 1975 federal election in December was held owing to the dismissal of the Whitlam Government by Governor General John Kerr, and the subsequent appointment of federal Liberal leader Malcolm Fraser as caretaker Prime Minister. Prior to the dismissal, the Liberal Party had used its majority in the Australian Senate to block supply bills. Hall voted in favour of the supply bills being passed, and objected to the federal Liberals' actions. Hall had been praised for his stance on supply, but the Liberals attacked him, accusing him of being "Labor in a purple disguise" and saying that Fraser needed a compliant senate "not hampered by independents sitting on the fence". Hall countered by saying he was preferencing the Liberals and therefore not Labor-aligned, and that he was a "dedicated anti-socialist".
Hall saw the double dissolution as an opportunity to capture senate seats in all the states across the nation, and the LM sought to create bases outside South Australia. On 18 November, a LM rally was held at Melbourne Town Hall to launch a branch in Victoria. A branch was formed in Queensland and Hall travelled to Western Australia to oversee the formation of a state branch. Generally, the LM's attempts to spread its message failed owing to the dramatic and highly polarising effects of Whitlam's dismissal and the constitutional crisis, which produced angry demonstrations around the country. Amid the tumult, the media was almost completely focused on the two main parties, giving other groups almost no opportunities to capture the public imagination. The LM also found it difficult to establish a connection with the populace outside South Australia owing to its formation within a state-specific backdrop.
Attempts were made to expand the appeal of the LM through secret merger talks with the Australia Party, who initiated the idea, but these collapsed. The campaign was also hampered by the departure of two LM candidates who relabelled themselves as the Independent Liberal Movement. The first to leave the LM, C. W. Henderson, was a member of the LM Management Committee who criticised Hall's attempts to spread the party nationally. He accused Hall of having "delusions of grandeur", leading to his membership being suspended two days later. The next day, J. Henderson, the sixth member of the senate ticket, quit, saying he did not "want to be a puppet on a party string". Groves and Henderson aggressively campaigned against the LM, although they were to receive only 0.09% of the senate vote themselves.
When the election was held, there was a 12 percent swing towards the Liberal Party in South Australia, or 7 percent on two party preferred. There was a large swing against Labor owing to the dissatisfaction with the Whitlam administration, but it generally went directly to the Liberal Party. Against this background, and with relatively little media attention paid to the LM and its cause, Despite gaining prominence for his stance on supply, Hall struggled to be re-elected, gaining only 6.5 per cent of the Senate vote and relying on preferences, ironically from Labor. In South Australia, Labor gained 41 per cent of the vote, and the Liberals 51 per cent. In the lower house, the LM managed only 6.2% across the 12 seats, again recording its best result in Boothby, with 10.4%. Hall's hope for Australia-wide support for the LM was dashed owing to the previous events, with the party gaining negligible results for their candidates in other states. The lower house candidates in the Australian Capital Territory registered around 3%, but the senate candidates in Western Australia, New South Wales, Victoria and Queensland received less than 1%. Hall's opinion was that "the Liberal Movement was for its part in the contest happy to have survived." Nevertheless, Hall was still adamant the LM's future was as a standalone entity: "The LM is going to continue as an Australia-wide party ... We shall have to go through the sickening process of having the Liberal party make overtures to us once again ... I would like to tell them right now that they will be wasting their breath." Despite Hall's defiance, the poor showing meant his senate term was only to last for three rather than six years, and he no longer had the balance of power and the resulting media exposure. This was a problem, as the party was largely centred around his personality.
Decline.
Independent of the LM, the LCL had begun to change. It eventually supported Don Dunstan's bills for electoral reform, both to the House of Assembly and the Legislative Council, and its internal structure was reorganised and modernised, particular with the arrival of Tonkin, its first urban leader. The LCL renamed itself the South Australian Division of the Liberal Party of Australia to bring itself into line with its federal counterpart. Thus, many of the reasons for the LM's split had become null. Combined with the LM's declining membership (one third of members had not renewed) and its large debt, it found itself in a precarious position. Negotiations in 1976 began with the aim for the LM to merge into the new Liberal Party, and news of the secret talks were leaked in April. Once the news became public, Millhouse stated his complete opposition: "I will not rejoin the Liberal Party ... I have meant what I said in the past and I do not see any change in the attitude of the Liberal Party to alter my view." He said doing so would entail a surrender of honour and self-respect, and described the LM as the only "genuine Liberal party" in the nation, boldly predicting that its agenda would become dominant in society. Millhouse's stand was widely condemned by the media, who saw it as based on pride rather than pragmatism, and unhelpful for anti-Labor politics. Hall, however, wanted to unite the non-Labor forces, and acknowledged that "there is no prospect of maintaining LM electorate groups ... in simple terms, our alternatives are to swallow some little pride, and unite to fight Labor." He said to do otherwise would be to "exist in splendid selfish isolation", and said they could not survive as a relevant force by holding Goyder and Mitcham and losing upper house seats owing to a dwindling vote. Hall said the LM's reform agenda had been fulfilled, their finances were untenable and contended there was no ideological reason remaining for a split. This put him at increasing odds with Millhouse, who continued to describe the Liberals as "very conservative". Some members of the Liberals were also wary of a merger, owing to the long-standing antipathy between the two groups, and persistent criticism of them from the LM over the years.
In the meantime, the negotiations continued, with Hall prominent. During informal discussions following the 1975 state election, Millhouse had been offered the deputy leadership in a merged party, and Cameron a leading role in the upper house, but following the poor showing at the federal election and the deteriorating financial state of the LM, the offer was reduced and the posts that had been offered to Millhouse and Cameron were no longer available. However, Hall was still able to negotiate for the LM President and Treasurer to be given positions on a new executive. He also agreed to forgo any further senate bids. An agreement was put in place to protect Boundy from being ousted at a pre-selection of the new party, but this was broken at the next election. The LM was also given an equal voting share on pre-selection committees for three urban lower house seats.
Labor was not pleased with the prospect of its opponents being reunited and potentially more effective, and Premier Dunstan mocked the opposition parties as a "circus", while his deputy Des Corcoran predicted the new entity would not be able to last. The media continued to criticise Millhouse's defiance as disruptive.
When the LM voted narrowly in May 1976 to rejoin the Liberals (222 to 211), Millhouse immediately created the New LM, and became its only parliamentary representative. He tried to put an optimistic view on the matter, saying that the close-run vote as an endorsement of his position, and the merger as an opportunity to start with a clean slate with no debt. The merger was finalised on 4 June when the Liberals' State Council voted heavily in favour.
He was a prominent member of the Assembly, and a constant irritant to the Liberals, with whom he often sparred. When Don Chipp resigned from the federal Liberal Party, and stated his intention to create a centrist and progressive "third force" in Australian politics, Millhouse's New LM responded. Chipp's Australian Democrats was created, and negotiations began for a merger between the two parties. The New LM candidates at the 1977 state election stood under a joint New LM-Australian Democrats ticket, winning 12.3 per cent of the vote in the 12 electorates they contested, and Millhouse defeated the Liberal candidate in the lower house seat of Mitcham, which he would hold until resigning from parliament in 1982. The merger was finalised on 3 October 1977 and the New LM was absorbed into the Democrats. Meanwhile, the interstate branches of the LM, which had been in existence for only six months, either disbanded in 1976, or eventually evolved and merged into state components of the Democrats. The Western Australian division of the LM was the strongest interstate branch and renamed itself the Centre Line Party before becoming the state branch of the Democrats.
David Tonkin, an LM member before it split and became a separate party, had gained the Liberal party leadership in 1975, succeeding Eastick. He worked swiftly to heal the internal party wounds, and to re-establish the non-Labor forces and provide an effective opposition. The 1977 state election saw a decline in Liberal support, but the party gained power soon after the resignation of Premier Dunstan, with an 11 per cent swing at the 1979 state election, receiving 55 per cent of the two-party-preferred vote, though losing office after one term at the 1982 state election. The first Democrats MLC was also elected in 1979 on a first preference vote of 6.5 per cent. The Democrats continued to attract support, and held the balance of power in the Legislative Council for most of the time from the 1979 state election until the 1997 state election.
Parliamentarians.
All went back into the fold of the LCL successor, the South Australian Division of the Liberal Party of Australia, except for Millhouse who joined the New Liberal Movement (New LM), one of the predecessor parties that would form the Australian Democrats.


Rump Parliament

The Rump Parliament was the English Parliament after Colonel Thomas Pride purged the Long Parliament, on 6 December 1648, of those members hostile to the Grandees' intention to try King Charles I for high treason.
"Rump" normally means the hind end or back-side of a mammal; its use meaning "remnant" was first recorded in the above context in English. Since 1649, the term "rump parliament" has been used to refer to any parliament left over from the actual legitimate parliament.
Treaty of Newport.
In September 1648, at the end of the Second English Civil War, the Long Parliament was concerned with the increasing radicalism in the New Model Army. The Long Parliament began negotiations with King Charles I. The members wanted to restore the king to power, but wanted to limit the authority he had. Charles I conceded militia power, among other things, but he later admitted that "it was only so he could escape". In November the negotiations began to fail, and the New Model Army seized power. Charles I was then taken into the Army's custody to await trial for treason.
Pride's Purge.
The New Model Army wanted to prevent Parliament from agreeing on the Treaty of Newport to reinstate King Charles I. While Presbyterian and moderate elements within Parliament were inclined to continue negotiations, the Army was impatient with Charles. Thomas Fairfax, by issuing a command to Commissary General Ireton, organized a military coup in 1648. Ireton intended to dissolve the Long Parliament but was persuaded to purge it instead. He then ordered Colonel Thomas Pride to prevent the signing of the Treaty of Newport.
Between 6 and 12 December, Pride—supported by two regiments—prevented 231 known supporters of the treaty from entering the House, imprisoning 45 for a few days. The remaining free members then became the Rump Parliament.
Execution of Charles I and abolition of the monarchy.
When it became apparent to the leaders of the New Model Army that Parliament—then controlled by the Presbyterian faction—was ready to come to an agreement with the King that would restore him to the throne (though without effective power) and negate the power of the Army, they resolved to shatter the power of both King and Parliament. Pride's Purge brought Parliament to heel under the direct control of the Army; the remaining Commons (the Rump) then on 13 December 1648, broke off negotiations with the King. Two days later, the Council of Officers of the New Model Army voted that the King be moved from the Isle of Wight, where he was prisoner, to Windsor, "in order to the bringing of him speedily to justice". The King was brought from Windsor to London in the middle of December.
On 4 January 1649, the House of Commons passed an ordinance to set up a High Court of Justice, to try Charles I for high treason in the name of the people of England. The House of Lords rejected it, and as it did not receive Royal Assent, Charles asked at the start of his trial on 20 January in Westminster Hall, "I would know by what power I am called hither. I would know by what authority, I mean lawful authority", knowing that there was no legal answer under the constitutional arrangements of the time. He was convicted with fifty-nine commissioners (judges) signing the death warrant.
The execution of Charles I was stayed until 30 January, so that the House of Commons could pass an emergency act, the "Act prohibiting the proclaiming any person to be King of England or Ireland, or the Dominions thereof", that made it an offence to proclaim a new King, and to declare the representatives of the people, the House of Commons, as the source of all just power. The Commons voted to abolish the House of Lords on 6 February and to abolish the monarchy on 7 February; an act abolishing the kingship was formally passed by the Rump on 17 March, followed by an act to abolish the House of Lords on 19 March. The establishment of a Council of State was approved on 14 February, and on 19 May an was passed. The Treasons Act made it an offence to say that the House of Commons (without the Lords or the King) was not the supreme authority of the land.
Membership, attendance, and allegiances.
Although an exact number is unknown, it is estimated that there were about 210 members of the Rump Parliament. This was approximately a fifty-five percent decrease from the 470-member enrollment of the Long Parliament before Pride's Purge. Though nine new members were admitted to the Rump Parliament, the vast majority of the Rumpers were transferred from the Long Parliament.
Most Rumpers still regarded many purged colleagues as "members of parliament" and remained hopeful that the excluded members would be readmitted. "The Rump did not think of itself as a corporate political entity distinct in membership, aims and character from the Long Parliament". There were a variety of reasons why people wanted to be a part of the Rump Parliament. Some members stayed in the Rump Parliament because they supported the revolutionary changes afoot, while others were there for financial advantage, civilian power, or to satisfy their relish for political activity.
Because of the varied energies within the Rump, the parliament divided into two categories, front benchers and back benchers, meaning respectively those who attended parliament regularly and those who did not. Only about one-third of the Rump Parliament became front benchers while the other two-thirds were back benchers. Within the active third of the rump, there were many family allegiances, local allegiances and most importantly, common interest groups. The majority of active rumpers could fit into one of the two common interest categories:
Although lawyers and merchants were a minority compared to the large number of rural land lords that occupied the Rump Parliament, their interest groups' energy and cohesiveness was able to largely influence Rump politics.
Political changes.
During the time of the Commonwealth of England (1649–1653), the Rump passed a number of acts in the areas of religion, law, and finance, as well as in commercial and colonial policy. Most of the members of the Rump wanted to promote "godliness", but also to restrict the more extreme puritan sects like the Quakers and the Ranters. An Adultery Act of May 1650 imposed the death penalty for incest and adultery and three months imprisonment for fornication; the Blasphemy Act of August 1650 was aimed at curbing extreme religious "enthusiasm". To stop extreme evangelicals from preaching, they formed a "Committee for the Propagation of the Gospel", which issued licenses to preach. To allow Puritans freedom of worship, they repealed the Elizabethan requirement of compulsory attendance at an Anglican Church. As lawyers were overrepresented in the Rump Parliament, the Rump did not respond to the popular requests made by the Levellers to change the expensive legal system.
The Rump raised revenue through the sale of Crown lands and Church property, both of which were popular. However, revenue raised through excise levies and through an Assessment Tax on land were unpopular as they affected everyone who owned property. The proceeds from confiscated Royalist estates were a valuable source of income, but it was a double-edged sword. It ingratiated Parliament to people like John Downes who were making a fortune from the business but it did nothing to heal the wounds of the Civil War.
Three acts of the parliament in 1650 and 1651 are notable in the historical development of England's commercial and colonial programs. These include the first Commission of Trade to be established by an Act of Parliament on 1 August 1650. The instructions to the named commissioners included consideration of both domestic and foreign trade, the trading companies, manufactures, free ports, customs, excise, statistics, coinage and exchange, and fisheries, but also the plantations and the best means of promoting their welfare and rendering them useful to England. This act's statesmanlike and comprehensive instructions, along with an October act prohibiting trade with pro-royalist colonies and the first Navigation Act of October 1651, formed the first definitive expression of England's commercial policy. They represent the first attempt to establish a legitimate control of commercial and colonial affairs, and the instructions indicate the beginnings of a policy which had the prosperity and wealth of England exclusively at heart.
Oliver Cromwell.
In 1653, after learning that Parliament was attempting to stay in session despite an agreement to dissolve, and having failed to come up with a working constitution, Cromwell's patience ran out. On 20 April he attended a sitting of Parliament and listened to one or two speeches. Then he stood up and harangued the members of the Rump. This speech does not survive, but has often been paraphrased, for instance in the "Book of Days":
He then declared "you are no Parliament" and called in a troop of soldiers, under the command of Major-General Thomas Harrison, ordering them to clear the chamber. According to Charles Dickens in "A Child's History of England" and Hilaire Belloc, he then turned to the Speaker's Mace, the symbol of parliamentary power, declared it a "fool's bauble", and ordered the troops "here, carry it away". Cromwell's motives are uncertain, but may lie in his disapproval of Sir Henry Vane's scheme for a redistribution of constituencies that retained sitting members of Parliament and continued to fill vacancies with recruiter elections.
A more detailed record of the event is recounted by Thomas Salmon in his "Chronological Historian" (London, 1723, 106):
Salmon does not cite his own sources but the version is sufficiently detailed to suggest that he had access to descriptions of the event that were certainly current in his time, and were probably derived from eye-witness descriptions. It is therefore probably at least accurate in general tone, if not precise detail.
Within a month of the Rump's dismissal, Oliver Cromwell on the advice of Harrison and with the support of other officers in the Army, sent a request to Congregational churches in every county to nominate those they considered fit to take part in the new government.
On 4 July, a Nominated Assembly, nicknamed the "Assembly of Saints" or Barebone's Parliament (named after one of its members), took on the role of more traditional English parliaments.
End of the Rump Parliament.
Richard Cromwell, the third (and eldest surviving) son of Oliver Cromwell, was appointed Lord Protector after his father's death. He called the Third Protectorate Parliament in 1659. Along with the Army, it was unable to form a stable government. After seven months, the Army removed Cromwell; on 6 May 1659, it reinstalled the Rump Parliament. The Rump Parliament issued a declaration establishing a "Commonwealth without a king, single person, or house of lords".
According to Edmond Ludlow:
On 14 May:
After a few months, divisions in the Commonwealth were settled by force of arms. On 12 October the Rump voted to declare the seven commissioners' responsibility for the Army void and appointed Charles Fleetwood commander-in-chief under the Speaker of the House. The next day on 13 October 1659 the Army in London under the command of John Lambert assisted by Charles Fleetwood excluded the Rump from Parliament by locking the doors to the Palace of Westminster and stationing armed guards outside. Lambert and Fleetwood created a 23 member Committee of Safety to govern the country in place of the Rump with General Fleetwood and Lambert directly under him, commander of the Army in England and Scotland.
Sir Arthur Haselrig appealed to other Army generals to support the Rump against Fleetwood and Lambert. Fearing anarchy because of the conflict within Parliament and the general anger at the decisions the Rump had made, General George Monck, commander-in-chief of the English army in Scotland, declared that he was ready to uphold Parliament's authority and march at the head of his army to London, holding true to a statement in his book, "Observations Upon Military and Political Affairs" in which he said he valued the stability of his nation and the power of Parliament over his own life.
Monck was also in a particularly powerful position because of his former relationship with and endorsement from Oliver Cromwell. Many imbued him with the power to affect who the next king would be. Lambert marched north against Monck in November 1659. Lambert's army began to melt away, and he was kept in suspense by Monck till his whole army deserted and he returned to London almost alone. On 24 December 1659, the chastened Fleetwood approached the Speaker, William Lenthal, asking him to recall the Rump. The same day Lenthal took possession of the Tower and appointed commissioners for its government. The Rump met again on 26 December 1659. Parliament declared Monck commander-in-chief in England as well as Scotland.
Monck marched into England in January 1660, as Lambert's supporters in the Army were cashiered and his authority crumbled. When Sir Thomas Fairfax emerged from retirement to declare his support for Monck, Army support for Monck became almost unanimous. Monck entered London in February 1660 and he allowed the Presbyterian members, 'secluded' in Pride's Purge of 1648, to re-enter parliament on 21 February 1660 on the condition that the restored Long Parliament would agree to dissolve themselves once general elections had been held. The "Long Parliament" dissolved itself on 16 March 1660, after preparing legislation for the Convention Parliament that formally invited King Charles II to be the English monarch in what has become known as the Restoration (of the House of Stuart).


Martin Adolf Andersen

Martin Adolf Andersen (17 January 1844 – 21 December 1927) was a Norwegian farmer and politician for the Liberal Party.
He was elected to the Norwegian Parliament in 1889, representing the constituency of Kristians Amt (now Oppland). He only served one term.
He was also involved in local politics, serving as mayor of Østre Toten from 1878 to 1893. He succeeded Hans Laurits Olsen Hammerstad and was succeeded by Peder Madsen Wang.


Jean-Jacques Lefranc, Marquis de Pompignan

Jean-Jacques Lefranc (also Le Franc), Marquis de Pompignan (10 August 1709 – 1 November 1784) was a French man of letters and erudition, who published a considerable output of theatrical work, poems, literary criticism, and polemics; treatises on archeology, nature, travel and many other subjects; and a wide selection of highly regarded translations of the classics and other works from several European languages including English.
His life and career, as well as his literary and other works are noteworthy today because of their location at the very center of the French Enlightenment; and although some of the positions he took are also considered to have been formative contributions to the counter-Enlightenment tendencies that were being articulated in parallel, he remains, in many respects, the typical Enlightenment man.
The prolific volumes of literary works are now of academic interest only, mainly to flesh out aspects of the culture of the time, which embraced a period in which tensions that were to explode in the French Revolution five years after his death were still held in check. Lefranc is remembered today, if he is at all, as a consequence of the maiden speech he gave at the Académie française in 1760, which led to him becoming forever known and defined as "the enemy of Voltaire".
His library of some 25,000 volumes was sold after his death by his son, and became founding collections for no less than three learned institution in Toulouse. He built a neo-classical chateau at Pompignan, and over a period of thirty-five years created one of the earliest and most extensive "parcs à fabriques" (or French landscape garden).
The chateau stands in good order today, and although the park and its follies have been neglected, the extensive hydrological system still functions. In May 2011 the decision was taken to route the planned Bordeaux-Toulouse TGV and high-speed freight rail lines through the center of the Lefranc's landscape park.
Biography.
The Lefranc family were originally landlords of the Château de Cayx (or see on French Wiki, which gives more detail), overlooking a bend on the Lot some 12 km northwest of Cahors. Successive Lefrancs had served since 1640 as hereditary presidents of the regional "Cours des Aides", which was located in Cahors. When Louis XIV ordered the court to be moved to Montauban (some 60 km south of Cahors over difficult roads), during the presidency of Jacques Lefranc in the early years of the 18th century, the family built a town house in Montauban as their local residence. It still stands impressively today at 10 rue Armand Cambon (there is a Place Lefranc de Pompignan nearby). At the same time, lands were purchased at Pompignan (some 20 km to the southwest of Montauban) to provide a convenient rural retreat.
Jean-Jacques' father, Jacques Lefranc, was the third of the name to become president of the "Cour des Aides", and he was to be followed by his eldest son and grandson. The family retained the seat at Cayx, and the beautifully sited old chateau was where Jean-Jacques and his brother were reared; as a young man he styled himself Lefranc de Caix. His mother, born Mademoiselle de Caulet, was of the same millieu, her father serving as a "president of the morter" - a judicial rank - at the Parlement de Toulouse, where Jean-Jacques was also to have a brief tenure.
His education was entrusted to " ... the most skillful masters at the Capital, where he found himself among the disciples of the celebrated Pere Poré. The student made rapid progress, and was not slow in showing proof of a talent as rare as it was precocious. After successfully completing his classical studies [at the Collège de Louis-le-Grand], he remained in Paris to attend the School of Law." Voltaire, fifteen years older than Lefranc, attended this school from 1704 to 1711, and was also influenced by Pere Poré.
He joined the staff of the Cours des Aides in 1730, during the presidency of his uncle, the abbé Louis Lefranc, who had succeeded his brother, Jean-Jacques' father Jacques, on the death of the latter in 1719. When Louis died in 1745, Jean-Jacques, who had by then served for fifteen years as a general advocate at the court, although expected to succeed him in turn, was not yet old enough to be awarded the position, and had to wait until early 1747 to take over its presidency.
The same year he was also appointed "conseiller d'honneur" of the Toulouse parlement, but his opposition to the abuses of the royal power, especially in the matter of taxation, brought him so much trouble that he resigned almost immediately.
Early works.
His first play, "Didon" (1734), which owed much to Metastasio's opera on the same subject, was a great success, and gave rise to expectations not fulfilled by the "Adieux de Mars" (1735) and some light operas that followed.
His reputation was made by "Poésies sacrées et philosophiques" (1734), later mocked by Voltaire, who punned on the title: "Sacrés ils sont, car personne n'y touche" ("They are sacred all right, because no one will touch them"). Lefranc's odes on profane (or worldly) subjects hardly reach the same level of quality, with the exception of his ode on the death of JB Rousseau, which achieved considerable renown.
The "Academie" and the war with Voltaire.
His marriage with a wealthy widow enabled him to devote himself fully to literature, and also funded his campaign for a seat in the Académie française, which was achieved in 1759.
However, on his formal induction into the "Academie" in 1760, he made an ill-considered speech violently attacking the Encyclopaedists, many of whom were in his audience and had voted for him.
Lefranc soon had reason to repent of his action, for the epigrams and stories circulated by those he had attacked made it difficult for him to remain in Paris, and he returned to his native town, where he spent the rest of his life gardening, writing poetry and translating from the classics.
Jean-François de la Harpe, who is severe enough on Lefranc in his correspondence, does his abilities full justice in his "Cours littéraire", and ranks him next to JB Rousseau among French lyric poets. With those of other 18th-century poets his works may be studied in the "Petits poètes français" (1838) of Prosper Poitevin. His "Œuvres complètes" (5 vols.) were published in 1781, selections (2 vols.) in 1800, 1813, 1822.
The chateau and its "parc a fabriques".
Beginning in 1745, Lefranc rebuilt the manor house at Pompignan as the present neoclassical Chateau de Pompignan, and over a period of thirty-five years created a very extensive landscape garden, containing many follies, or architectural constructions to enhance the natural and created landscape. These included ruined temples, a gothic bridge, pleasure houses, and an extensive hydraulic and reservoir system which managed a lake and fishpond, streams, fountains and the water for the house.
Family.
Jean-Jaques' younger brother, Jean Georges Lefranc de Pompignan, rose through the hierarchy to become Archbishop of Vienne and a favourite of the king, whose eulogy he delivered.
Pompignan was also the alleged biological father of the French suffragist and playwright Olympe de Gouges (1748-1793).


AnoNet

anoNet is a decentralized friend-to-friend network built using VPNs and software BGP routers. anoNet works by making it difficult to learn the identities of others on the network allowing them to anonymously host IPv4 and IPv6 services.
Motivation.
Implementing an anonymous network on a service by service basis has its drawbacks, and it is debatable if such work should be built at the application level. A simpler approach could be to design an IPv4/IPv6 network where its participants enjoyed strong anonymity. Doing so allows the use of any number of applications and services already written and available on the internet at large.
IPv4 networks do not preclude anonymity by design; it is only necessary to decouple the identity of the owner of an IP address from the address itself. Commercial internet connectivity and its need of billing records makes this impossible, but private IPv4 networks do not share that requirement. Assuming that a router administrator on such a metanet knows only information about the adjacent routers, standard routing protocols can take care of finding the proper path for a packet to take to reach its destination. All destinations further than one hop can for most people's threat models be considered anonymous. This is because only your immediate peers know your IP. Anyone not directly connected to you only knows you by an IP in the 21.0.0.0/8 range, and that IP is not necessarily tied to any identifiable information.
anoNet is pseudonymous.
Everyone can build a profile of an anoNet IP address: what kind of documents it publishes or requests, in which language, about which countries or towns, etc. If this IP ever publishes a document that can lead to its owner's identity, then all other documents ever published or requested can be tied to this identity. Unlike some other Friend to Friend (F2F) programs, there is no automatic forwarding in anoNet that hides the IP of a node from all nodes that are not directly connected to it.
However, all existing F2F programs can be used inside anoNet, making it harder to detect that someone uses one of these F2F programs (only a VPN connection can be seen from the outside, but traffic analysis remain possible).
Architecture.
Since running fiber to distant hosts is prohibitively costly for the volunteer nature of such a network, the network uses off-the-shelf VPN software for both router to router, and router to user links. This offers other advantages as well, such as invulnerability to external eavesdropping and the lack of need for unusual software which might give notice to those interested in who is participating.
To avoid addressing conflict with the internet itself, anoNet initially used the IP range 1.0.0.0/8. This was to avoid conflicting with internal networks such as 10.0.0.0/8, 172.16.0.0/12 and 192.168.0.0/16, as well as assigned Internet ranges. In January 2010 IANA allocated 1.0.0.0/8 to APNIC. In March 2017 anoNet changed the network to use the 21.0.0.0/8 subnetwork, which is assigned to the United States Department of Defense but is not currently in use on the internet.
The network itself is not arranged in any regular, repeating pattern of routers, although redundant (>1) links are desired. This serves to make it more decentralized, reduces choke points, and the use of BGP allows for redundancy.
Suitable VPN choices are available, if not numerous. Any robust IPsec package is acceptable, such as FreeS/WAN or Greenbow. Non-IPsec solutions also exist, such as OpenVPN and SSH tunneling. There is no requirement for a homogeneous network; each link could in fact use a different VPN daemon.
Goals.
One of the primary goals of anoNet is to protect its participants' rights of speech and expression, especially those that have come under attack of late. Some examples of what might be protected by anoNet include:
How it works.
It is impossible on the Internet to communicate with another host without knowing its IP address. Thus, the anoNet realizes that you will be known to your peer, along with the subnet mask used for communicating with them. A routing protocol, BGP, allows any node to advertise any routes they like, and this seemingly chaotic method is what provides users with anonymity. Once a node advertises a new route, it is hard for anyone else to determine if it is a route to another machine in another country via VPN, or just a dummy interface on that users machine.
It is possible that certain analysis could be used to determine if the subnet was remote (as in another country), or local (as in either a dummy interface, or a machine connected via Ethernet.)
These include TCP timestamps, ping times, OS identification, user agents, and traffic analysis.
Most of these are mitigatible through action on the users' part.
Scaling.
There are 65536 ASNs available in BGP v4. Long before anoNet reaches that number of routers the network will have to be split into OSPF clouds, or switched to a completely different routing protocol or alter the BGP protocol to use a 32bit integer for ASNs, like the rest of the Internet will do, since 32-bit AS numbers now are standardised.
There are also only 65536 /24 subnets in the 21.0.0.0/8 subnet. This would be easier to overcome by adding a new unused /8 subnet if there were any.
Allocated Subnets.
Below is the list of allocated IPv4 and IPv6 subnets as of 4 March 2020.
Security concerns.
Since there is no identifiable information tied to a user of anoNet, one might assume that the network would drop into complete chaos. Unlike other anonymous networks, on anoNet if a particular router or user is causing a problem it is easy to block them with a firewall. In the event that they are affecting the entire network, their peers would drop their tunnel.
With the chaotic nature of random addressing, it is not necessary to hide link IP addresses. These are already known. If however, a user wants to run services, or participate in discussions anonymously, he can advertise a new route, and bind his services or clients to the new IP addresses.
See also.
Similar software :
References.
Consideration of User Preference on Internet-based Overlay Network, T Gu, JB Yoo, CY Park - …, Networking, and Parallel/Distributed Computing, 2008 …, 2008 - ieeexplore.ieee.org


Statue of Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben

Major General Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben is a bronze statue of Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, executed by sculptor Albert Jaegers. It is erected in Lafayette Park in Washington, D.C.
History.
The statue was cast in 1909 and 1910 at a cost of $50,000. It honors Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben, the Baron von Steuben, a Prussian soldier who joined the Continental Army and instructed the American forces in Prussian military discipline and tactics, allowing them to gain skills necessary to challenge British forces. Von Steuben became a naturalized American citizen after leaving the army in 1784 and received a land grant in New York.
The statue was dedicated on December 7, 1910.
Depiction.
The bronze statue is of a standing Baron von Steuben in Continental Army uniform (with sash, boots, tricorn hat, and cape) looking into the distance while inspecting Continental Army soldiers in 1778. The statue sits atop a square pink granite base: the front and back feature ornament reliefs, and the left and right have figures in bronze. The base is flanked by two sets of allegorical figures: one to the southwest and the other to the northeast. The figures on the northeast side are two male figures symbolizing military instruction and the figures on the southwestern side are two female figures symbolizing commemoration.
Inscription.
The front of the base has the following inscription (topped by an American eagle):
The rear of the base contains profiles in relief of von Steuben's aides-de-camp, Colonel William North and Major Benjamin Walker, and the following inscription:


John Paul Jones Memorial

The John Paul Jones Memorial is a monument in West Potomac Park in Washington, D.C.. The memorial honors John Paul Jones, the United States' first naval war hero, father of the United States Navy, the only naval officer to receive a Congressional Gold Medal during the American Revolutionary War, and whose famous quote "I have not yet begun to fight!" was uttered during the Battle of Flamborough Head.
History.
Dedicated on April 17, 1912, the John Paul Jones Memorial was the first monument raised in Potomac Park. The memorial is located near the National Mall at the terminus of 17th Street Southwest near Independence Avenue on the northern bank of the Tidal Basin. A nearby marker contains a biographical sketch of John Paul Jones, and describes the memorial's history and features.
The memorial consists of a 10-foot (3 m) bronze statue that was sculpted by Charles H. Niehaus and a 15-foot (4.6 m) marble pylon. On each side of the monument, water flows out of ducts into a small pool. On the reverse side of the monument is a bas-relief of Jones raising the United States flag on his ship, the "Bonhomme Richard". The event is believed to be the first time the United States flag was flown on an American warship.
The statue is listed on the National Register of Historic Places as part of the American Revolution Statuary group in Washington, D.C.


Paul Andreas Jetmundsen Aklestad

Paul Andreas Jetmundsen Aklestad (18 December 1837 – 21 May 1924) was a Norwegian politician for the Liberal Party.
Born in Hjørundfjord, he worked as a teacher from 1854 to 1861, and then as a farmer in Hjørundfjord. He was also director of the local savings bank, municipal treasurer and county auditor. He was a member of Hjørundfjord municipal council from 1866 to 1910. He served as mayor for thirty years, although the exact years are unknown. For an unknown period he was a member of the county committee, a forerunner of the county council. He was elected to the Norwegian Parliament from the constituency Romsdals Amt in 1889, and was re-elected on six consecutive occasions. His last term ended in 1909. His foremost concern was that of public saving instead of expenditure, in the vein of Søren Jaabæk.
In June 1861 he married Berte Johanne Olsdatter Skylstad (1840–1922), who hailed from a nearby farm in Hjørundfjord. They got several children.


The Case Against Barack Obama

The Case Against Barack Obama: The Unlikely Rise and Unexamined Agenda of the Media's Favorite Candidate, by author David Freddoso, is a bestselling book published in late 2008, providing a critical examination of the life and opinions of the then United States presidential candidate and Senator Barack Obama.
Freddoso was a political reporter for the website of the conservative magazine "National Review" when the book came out. He is now with the "Washington Examiner". The book was published by Regnery Publishing.
Freddoso said in an August 2008 interview that the book is an attempt to address what he sees as two wrong ways of considering Obama as a presidential candidate. The author wanted to counter those, including those in the news media, who look on Obama uncritically, and to do so in a way different from those who "are smearing him on the Internet for supposedly being a secret Muslim or supposedly not saluting the flag". The book harshly criticizes Obama over policy matters, according to Ben Smith, a writer at "The Politico". For the most part, the book is drawn from published sources, although Freddoso does some original reporting.
The first press run of the book was nearly 300,000 copies, and it appeared on the August 24, 2008 New York Times Bestseller List for hardcover nonfiction at No. 5. Publicity for the book is handled by the conservative public relations firm Creative Response Concepts.
The book was released within weeks of two other books critical of Obama written by conservative writers: Jerome Corsi’s "The Obama Nation: Leftist Politics and the Cult of Personality", and Dick Morris’ "Fleeced: How Barack Obama, Media Mockery of Terrorist Threats, Liberals Who Want to Kill Talk Radio, the Do-Nothing Congress, Companies That Help Iran, and Washington Lobbyists for Foreign Governments Are Scamming Us ... and What to Do About It."
Content.
Obama's political positions are reviewed in the book. "If you’re a liberal, reading the following might make you support Obama even more," Freddoso states at one point in the book. "But if you’re honest, I think you’ll agree he’s no centrist."
The book discusses Obama's alleged "radical associations" with such controversial people as Bill Ayers, a former Weatherman organization leader, and Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright.
Part of the book focuses on Obama's having made accommodations with the Cook County Democratic Party, despite Obama's start in politics as a candidate appealing to reform-minded voters in the Hyde Park neighborhood of the city.
The book dwells at length on Obama's opposition to an Illinois bill that sought to protect infants “born alive,” but whose critics said it could have fundamentally undermined the right to abortion. A similar bill passed the United States Congress only after an explicit commitment to Roe v. Wade was added, which Freddoso dismisses as trivial, but which abortion rights advocates saw as crucial.
Response.
Barack Obama presidential campaign.
A spokesman for Barack Obama's presidential campaign said the book, along with Jerome Corsi's biography, distorts the story of the candidate's life and his record. "These books are cut from the same cloth, made up of the same old debunked smears that have been floating around the Internet for months," said spokesman Tommy Vietor.
On September 15, 2008, the Obama campaign mobilized its “Obama Action Wire” sending an email out to Obama supporters urging them to complain to WGN Radio in Chicago after host Milt Rosenberg invited Freddoso on his show to discuss his book.
Reviews.
Ben Smith, a writer at The Politico, called the book the "first serious negative biography of Senator Barack Obama". The book's official release date was August 4, 2008. According to Smith, the book "occupies a small island in the often-shrill sea of criticism of Obama [...] Freddoso opts largely for a fact-based critique, and writes that the viral and overt smears have allowed Obama to evade substantive criticism." Smith wrote that the book "rehashes familiar complaints, though in more detail — and often with more nuance, if not much sympathy — than you’re likely to see in the conservative media."
Jim Geraghty, a writer for "National Review" and "National Review Online", wrote in his review of the book that "Freddoso one aspect of the Obama message, the idea that Obama is a reformer, and obliterates it in the manner of a professional demolitions crew." Geraghty also compared the book to Jerome Corsi's "The Obama Nation". "If Obama falls short of his presidential aspiration, his supporters will be quick to attribute it to 'false smears' in Corsi’s book," Geraghty predicted. "But any Obama defeat is more likely to be a result of the hard truths in Freddoso’s." Geraghty notes that David Freddoso thanks him in the book's acknowledgments section.
Alleged inaccuracies.
According to an Associated Press report, Freddoso's book "sometimes includes inaccurate or incomplete information" to back the argument that Obama's record should be opposed by conservatives and moderates. The report states that "Freddoso accuses Obama of voting to raise taxes on anyone with taxable income of more than $32,500." The nonpartisan watchdog group Factcheck.org (itself funded primarily by the Annenberg Foundation), notes that provision was part of a nonbinding budget resolution that had no actual impact on tax levels, and that Obama's tax proposals do not include any such increase." According to Factcheck.org: "...Obama's March 2008 vote for a non-binding budget resolution that would have set general revenue and spending targets for congressional tax-writing and appropriations committees. The resolution does not contain a specific provision to raise tax rates, but rather assumes that most of the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts expire as scheduled in 2011. It also bears no relation to Obama's proposed economic plan" and also "In particular, the (budget) resolution would allow the 25 percent tax bracket to return to its pre-2001 level of 28 percent. That bracket kicks in at $32,550 for an individual or $65,100 for a married couple."
Writing, publishing and publicizing the book.
Freddoso took a leave from his job with National Review Online to write the book. The author had been a writer for "Human Events" and a political reporter for Robert Novak's "Evans-Novak Political Report".
The first press run of the book totaled nearly 300,000 copies, and it appeared on the August 24, 2008 New York Times Bestseller List for hardcover nonfiction at No. 5 (the list reflected sales for the week ending August 9, 2008; the "Times" stated that some book stores reported receiving bulk orders). Publicity for the book is handled by the conservative public relations firm Creative Response Concepts, headed by former Republican political official Greg Mueller. Creative Response Concepts also organized publicity for "Unfit for Command" by John O'Neill and Jerome Corsi, and for the 527 group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth during the 2004 United States presidential election.


Avraham Katz

Avraham Katz (, born 1931, died 13 August 1986) was an Israeli politician who served as a member of the Knesset for Gahal and Likud between 1969 and 1981.
Biography.
Born in Ness Ziona during the Mandate era, Katz was educated at the Herzliya Hebrew High School. He joined the Palmach was a member of its Harel Brigade during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. He went on to study literature, economics and geography at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, gaining a BA and MA and certification as a high school teacher. Between 1950 and 1955 he was a member of the university's student council.
In 1955 he joined the General Zionists. He was also a member of the High School Teachers Association, serving as spokesman and a member of its directorate, and as its chairman between 1962 and 1969. Between 1968 and 1969 he worked as director of the Ministry of Education's School of Completion Studies for Senior Educators.
In 1969 Katz was elected to the Knesset on the Gahal list, an alliance of Herut and the Liberal Party (which the General Zionists had merged into in 1961). The following year he began lecturing in the geography department at Tel Aviv University, a post he held until 1977. He was re-elected in 1973, by which time Gahal had merged into Likud. He was re-elected again in 1977 and the following year became a member of the board of the Jewish Agency for Israel, also heading its Youth and Pioneering Department. He lost his seat in the 1981 elections.
He died in 1986.


Civic Act-up

Civic Act-up () is a small pro-democracy political group in the Hong Kong. It was founded on 24 September 2003 by a group of relatively young activists with the encouragement of Legislative Councillor Cyd Ho Sau-lan, to challenge the existing pro-government District Councillors in Wanchai District in the 2003 District Council elections. There is no formal structure in the group.
Beliefs.
The platform of the group includes pressing for universal suffrage for the Chief Executive and Legislative Council, improvements in urban design and transportation, paying special attention to youth, women and ethnic minority issues, and extending anti-discrimination laws to the areas of age, sexual orientation and race.
History.
It was formed in the background of the 2003 July 1 march, where half of a million Hong Kong people showed up in the demonstration against the legislation of the Hong Kong Basic Law Article 23 and the Tung Chee-hwa administration. In the wake of the massive civil movement, Legislative Councillor Cyd Ho So-lan formed the Civic Act-up to contest in the Wanchai District in the 2003 District Council elections. Three out of five candidates of the group won in the 2003 District Council elections, with Cyd Ho defeated the pro-Beijing DAB's Legislative Councillor Ip Kwok-him in the Kwun Lung constituency in Central and Western District.
In 2004 LegCo elections, Cyd Ho, representing the Civic Act-up, lost her seat to DAB's Choy So-yuk with a narrow margin in Hong Kong Island due to tactical mistake of the ally Democratic Party. Cyd Ho revenged her defeat in the 2012 LegCo elections by winning in Hong Kong Island.
In 2012, Cyd Ho joined the Labour Party and ran under the Labour banner in the 2012 LegCo elections.


Galit Distel-Etebaryan

Galit Distel-Etebaryan (, born 10 January 1971) is an Israeli writer and politician. She is currently a member of the Knesset for Likud.
Biography.
Distel-Etebaryan has an MA in Philosophy from Hebrew University and had a clothing store named "My Sister" in the Modi'in-Shilat industrial zone.
She published her first novel ("And If They Told You") in 2009 and her second ("Peacock in the Stairwell") in 2014, for which she was nominated for the 2015 Sapir Prize. She subsequently became a right-wing political commentator, known for her forthright and controversial views and support for Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
Distel-Etebaryan was selected by Netanyahu for the tenth place on the Likud list for the 2021 elections, and was elected to the Knesset as Likud won thirty seats.
She lives in Kfar HaOranim and has two children.


Philippe-Alexandre Le Brun de Charmettes

Philippe-Alexandre Le Brun de Charmettes (1785–1870) was a French historian, poet, translator and official.
De Charmettes was born in Bordeaux (France).
He was appointed to the "French "Conseil d'État"" in 1810 and became a préfet (prefect) in the French department of Haute-Saône in 1830.
A contributor to the literary magazine "l’Abeille littéraire", created by Victor Hugo in 1821, he is mainly known for his successful efforts to rescue the figure of Jeanne d'Arc from partial oblivion and turn her into a national heroine.
His interest for Joan came at a time when France was still struggling to define its new identity after the Revolution and the Napoleonic wars. The national "ethos" was in search of non controversial heroes. A staunch prop to King and country, Joan of Arc was an acceptable symbol to the monarchists. As a patriot and the daughter of commoners, she was seen as one prototype of the low-born volunteers (the "soldats de l'an II") who had victoriously fought for revolutionary France in 1802 and as such could be claimed by the Republicans. As a religious martyr, she was also popular in the powerful Catholic community. De Charmette's "Orleanide", today largely forgotten, was another attempt to magnify the national "ethos" as writers like Virgil (the Aeneid), or Camoens (the Lusiad) had done for Rome and Portugal.
External links.
[[Category:1785 births]]
[[Category:1870 deaths]]
[[Category:People from Bordeaux]]
[[Category:Deaths in Chartres]]
[[Category:18th-century French poets]]
[[Category:19th-century French historians]]
[[Category:19th-century French writers]]
[[Category:Prefects of Haute-Saône]]
[[Category:French male poets]]
[[Category:19th-century French male writers]]
[[Category:French male non-fiction writers]]
[[Category:18th-century French male writers]]


Ludvig Olai Botnen

Ludvig Olai Botnen (27 March 1910 – 29 April 1987) was a Norwegian politician for the Liberal Party.
He was born in Førde.
He was elected to the Norwegian Parliament from Sogn og Fjordane in 1961, and was re-elected on one occasion. He had previously been a deputy representative in the periods 1950–1953 and 1954–1957.
Botnen was deputy mayor of Florø municipality in 1954, and mayor in 1955, 1955–1957 and 1959–1961. He then served as mayor of Flora in 1975–1979. At that point he had held various positions in local politics in Florø and Flora for 34 years. He headed the party chapter on county level from 1951 to 1960.
Outside politics he worked in newspapers. He was a journalist in "Firda" in 1931, became secretary in "Hordaland Folkeblad" in 1933 and then editor-in-chief of "Firda Folkeblad" from 1934 to 1942 and 1945 to 1976, interrupted by the German occupation of Norway.