Talk:Carmen Lawrence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Disputed content[edit]

Previously added the following material to the page but note that it has been removed:

  • Lawrence has previously suggested that issues of memory and its function will be the subject of a paper or study she may undertake. (ABC News, 7:30 Report, 23/7/99).
  • The release of cabinet documents following the expiry of confidentiality limits may reveal the nature of proceedings at the time of Lawrence's premiership. (Refer Enid Campbell UWA Law Review et al.)

These are factual statements relating to further information which may reveal new detail regarding the Easton affair and are, I suggest, not unreasonable inclusions on the page. I can only assume that their removal would indicate a reluctance to allow factual statements to be included in Wikipedia - something that brings Wikipedia, a wonderful resource, into disrepute. --220.244.224.104 14:09, 22 March 2005 (UTC)

Try assuming that they were removed as libel. See box above on Biog. You need to sneakier with your selective factoids and innuendo. Obvious bias brings your contributions into disrepute. Save it for your next Letter to the Editor not the WP. I have changed this to a biography ... AND SIGNED IT! --Fred.e 23:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
Response: I agree with the author of statements deleted by "Fred" (whoever Fred is) - that "their removal would indicate a reluctance to allow factual statements to be included in Wikipedia - something that brings Wikipedia, a wonderful resource, into disrepute." Neither statement is libelous in any interpretation of such under Australian Law (including available precedents (refer AUSTLII). Moreover, the statements are clearly referenced, the material to which they refer is available in the public domain, is factual, and their inclusion complies fully with Wikipedia requirements regarding statements included within biographies. I would question the real motives of "Fred" in removing this material. 219.90.246.194 11:07, 21 October 2006
The material would certainly belong in a full length, thorough biography article on Lawrence. Unfortunately, the article is short and covers most aspects of Lawrence's life and career only patchily, so the inclusion of a thorough and in-depth discussion of this one single issue creates an imbalance that, frankly, makes the article biased. If you're really keen on making this a great article, try expanding the whole thing rather than material on a single issue. Alternatively, you might consider creating a thorough, well-referenced and impartial article on the Penny Easton affair (or some other title). Then link to that article from here; that way this article remains fair and balanced in its coverage. Hesperian 11:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Well, back here again and the argument remains the same although now I am happy to say that the inclusion is fully compliant with the policy on biographies of living people. The material is referenced and if controversial then only as controversial as the inclusion of the Easton affair. Again, I can only assume that if it is removed the motivation for doing so is purely because it upsets someone's political sensibilities and certainly not a desire to hide any factual material.219.90.246.159 10:32, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Nice try, but we don't fall for the "If you are not a Nazi/child molester/whatever, then you will leave this material in" line here. Hesperian 10:48, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Whose "We"? Looks like that last comment is a shoot the messenger job becuase Hesperian doesn't like something that may cast the subject of the biography in a questionable light. Given that, as stated, the material is referenced, factual and relevant it looks like Hesperian's nose is out of joint. That has to be an upset of political sensibilities.Northlight 13:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
We are people who edit under a username, adhere to policy guidelines and not personal agendas, or personal criticism. You merely addressed the last editor, not the only one. And he is an editor of high integrity and is well regarded in our community. We is shorthand for a community editing an encyclopedia via consensus.
References from court documents tend to replace isolated comments with no context. No other sources or citations have been forthcoming about a person who is not obscure. The tragic events cast a 'questionable light' over both sides of politics, but the 'affair' appears nowhere else in wikipedia, including the named parties in cases. The extent of accusations against Lawrence, of which she was later exonerated, was having prior knowledge of members bill.
We also assume good faith, you will hear more about this if you decide to stay around and contribute. Start a website about any fascinations you have, but please note this is a serious document, not a soap box. Please refer to the introdutions to wikipedia, if you are new here. There is strict policy in few areas, but biographies of living persons is definitely one of them. If you change your view after reflecting on this, can I also suggest you apologise to the esteemed editor in question. Thanks Fred 14:58, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
If I remember correctly the circumstances were that the RC was called in 1995 about events three years earlier, right when the Liberals were answering some uncomfortable questions about Wanneroo in another royal commission. If there was ever a page written about John Halden it would be definitely relevant to that. Considering the subject of this article has had a largely unblemished 20-year career and her role in the affair was pretty much negligible (knowing ain't quite the same as doing, and that's even assuming she had full knowledge), it seems a bit odd dwelling on it here. There may be scope for a "List of Royal Commissions in Western Australia" at some point in the future though, there's been that many of them :) Orderinchaos78 15:26, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
Seems to me this whole "political sensibilities" argument is a red herring. It is beyond dispute that the Penny Easton affair and the Marks Royal Commission should be discussed here. And it is. The disputed material is:
"Lawrence previously suggested that issues of memory and its function will be the subject of a paper or study she may undertake. The release of cabinet documents following the expiry of confidentiality limits may reveal the nature of proceedings at the time of Lawrence's premiership."
Maybe I'm politically naive, but I fail to see how any of this is politically sensitive. The first sentence is just silly. It is of no interest to anyone what studies Lawrence said she might, but then ultimately didn't, undertake. I can only assume this sentence is an attempt at forming a novel synthesis between two apparently unrelated threads to do with Lawrence and memory. How or why, I have no idea. How this is politically sensitive, I have no idea.
The second sentence is accurate and politically neutral, but largely content free. If Enid Campbell has said that there is a great deal of interest in the release of the cabinet documents, or that the documents are crucial to understanding the affair, then great, include it. But right now all it is saying is "Lawrence's cabinet documents probably contain information about went on in Lawrence's cabinet". Der.
P.S. One last comment regarding my "political sensibilities". I've written one article on a scandal that brought down a W.A. Labour government. How many have you written? Hesperian 23:17, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
"Hesperian" and "Fred" - now there are two handles whose authenticity as "usernames" just stand out --- like "Northlight" or any other handle. Just because you sign off using a nom de plume doesn't validate your comment in any way whatsoever. Hell, you could be the same person, or Carmen Lawrence herself, or John Howard with bugger all else to do. The only really authentic username is your real name. I suspect we won't see that will we "Fred"? As for Carmen's memory lapse her stated concern on this was so great after the Royal Commission that she raised such human frailties in an ABC interview and was concerned enough by it that she expressed an intention to research and write about it. Perhaps this was just to assuage her feelings or make it look as if she was just the unfortunate victim of a poor memory. Self justification and defence at best it might be argued. After the heat blew over she obviously thought it was no longer an issue. Enid Campbell's comments are relevant in that they are indicative of just how much suspicion still surrounds Lawrence on the Easton Affair. The Easton Affair is a matter of public record and a key element of Carmen Lawrence's political career. The only reason Fred, Hesperian or anyone else would have to not want it included in an article on Carmen Lawrence is that they are embarrased by it or concerned that it might show Lawrence in a bad light. Who gives a rat's if you have a political bent, (a pox on both Liberal and Labor) - if you subscribe to the notion that this is really a reference site and encyclopedic, then you will have no issue with the material's inclusion. If you want to exercise a politically motivated editinig, do it somewhere else. Northlight 02:03, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Enough with the red herring. The Penny Easton affair is discussed here, and no-one is proposing to take it out. What is under dispute is two pointless and irrelevant sentences that (incidentally) don't appear to be politically sensitive. Your interminable accusations of political bias are tiresome. Hey, which of my articles shows the most bias: John Forrest, who used to call his Labor colleagues "dumb-driven cattle"; or John Scaddan, the most socialist of Labor premiers? Hesperian 02:16, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
There you go Hesperian, that should get you going again. Same arguments above stand as before. If you think the suggestions of bias are interminable wait until I really get going (this is great - it's like a sport - just throw the bait out and reel you in each time!). The content is relevant insofar as it sheds lighht on Carmen Lawrences questionable behaviour over this issue, behaviour which will not be fully revealed until release of Cabinet documents as Campbell has said. 64.34.173.104 01:30, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Reverted again. IMO those two sentences Northlight is adding are pointless additions to a biographical article. Is it possible he's got it wrong? —Moondyne 03:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
Removed material irrelevant to Lawrence--unreferenced, and out-of-date material.124.168.70.76 07:45, 21 May 2007 (UTC)

This really needs more on The Easton Affair.[edit]

Whatever you think of Lawrence, the arguments im reading above for leaving more than a cursory mention of The Easton Affair seem purely partisan.Before the scandal hit, Carmen Lawrence was seen as a major rising star of the ALP and there was talk of her being the nation's first female PM. The Easton Affair effectively torpedoed her political career and by the time she shook it off she had a permanent stain that condemned her to a supporting role for the forseeable future. It doesn't need to be paragraphs of text, but there needs to be more about it, explaining the impact on her career. 70.189.213.149 16:20, 23 May 2007 UTC

If you think the above is partisan, then you have fallen victim to the straw man argument. We all agree that the Easton affair is important and the material here should be expanded. What was under dispute is nothing more than these two sentences:
"Lawrence has previously suggested that issues of memory and its function will be the subject of a paper or study she may undertake. (ABC News, 7:30 Report, 23/7/99)."
"The release of cabinet documents following the expiry of confidentiality limits may reveal the nature of proceedings at the time of Lawrence's premiership. (Refer Enid Campbell UWA Law Review et al.)"
One party to the dispute insists on characterising the removal of these sentences as censorship of the Easton affair, but that does not make it so. Hesperian 23:56, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
I wasn't talking about the wall of text above, I was making my own comment unrelated to it. 70.189.213.149 16:11, 30 June 2007 (UTC)
Easton affair info needs to be added, right now we have one like about the affair without then explaining what happened. It could have been a dispute over the price of bread for all this tells us. Not to mention the fact that as it stands it basically tells us of negative allegations about Richard Court and nothing about Lawrence. 70.189.213.149 09:22, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

Cleanup[edit]

Article needs a bit of clean up to bring it up to standard as per other politcians articles (sections..etc) - will look at starting shortly. --Mikecraig 03:04, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Have started, will look at other similar articles for other bits to be added/fixed --Mikecraig 00:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Some suggested topics for expansion[edit]

Here are some topics/items/trivia which I hope might be useful in the expansion of the article:

Lawrence

  • was a protege of Brian Burke and he went to exceptional lengths to promote her as a candidate, appearing in full-page newspaper photo-ads with her; with her seated and him standing behind her with his hand on her shoulder. I don't think he did this for any other candidate.
  • had the nicknames "The Fremantle Doctor" and "Doctor Feelgood". (Later, when the shine rubbed off: the sarcastic "Saint Carmen", "Carping Carmen" and "Lawrence of Amnesia").
  • initiated a relief programme to guarantee purchase price (?) for wheat after a campaign led by a Morawa farmer. (I think the price held up and it wasn't called upon.)
  • was the initiator of the "W.A. Inc." Royal Commission.
  • was involved in the Western Women financial group scandal. (Some reference material at the Greenleft site. Also at Parliamentary committee report.
  • presided over some infrastructure projects: E.G. The Joondalup rail extension and the building of the Esplanade busport.
  • moved from the defunct electoral district of Subiaco to Glendalough at the 1989 election.
  • initially promised to "lead the Labor party to the next election" after the 1993 defeat.

(I'll add more as I think of them.) Retarius | Talk 04:11, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

From my own memory of that time and from a number of sources, she may have been amenable to Burke before entering parliament but her opposition to his style of government and many of his measures was evident from a very early stage and effectively prevented her from becoming a minister until after his departure, and ironically made her an obvious choice for Premier when the WA Inc stuff really started to bite. Jim McGinty, a *very* long-term opponent of Burke who as TLC secretary way back in 1982 was saying about Burke that he was "not someone who, given a wider choice, we would choose because of his flagrant right-wing disposition", was effectively kept out of Parliament until WA Inc was over (he ironically replaced one of its main protagonists in Parliament at a by-election!) was a close ally. The nicknames really have no place in the encyclopaedia, just as we don't have "Captain Smirk" on Peter Costello's entry despite some people's efforts to put it there. I've put in most of the areas - I will reference later but most of my stuff is straight from Political Chronicles of the period. Have read them but in the mess of my room can't find them :( so will have to copy them again next time I'm in the UWA library. Orderinchaos 12:46, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
OIC, thanks for your detailed expansion on my sketchy ideas; you're obviously much better informed about the internal politics of the Labor party than I am.
I've tried to format the headings to allow proper expansions.
I saw that you removed the section I developed on the Easton affair and the link that went with it to the article. You've described this in the edit history as "fix undue weight issue". I don't want to rehash the material in the first two items on this page; I took the time to read them carefully before proceeding to edit the article (You may have noticed that I took up Hesperian's challenge to create an article on the Easton affair) and I'm sure you're familiar with it all, as a contributor to the discussion. My understanding of the Easton affair is that it is the most important issue in the political career of Carmen Lawrence. I remember that Carmen Lawrence was received as Premier by most Western Australians with goodwill and open minds. (I was in that category. Nor did I rejoice when the Labor party lost office in 1993, much as they deserved it. My comment at the time, on seeing the quality of the new Ministry, was: "Western Australians have punished the Labor party by hitting themselves in the head with a brick.") Lawrence was the subject of serious and (at the time, plausible) speculation that she might be Australia's first female Prime Minister and was apparently on a golden career path. The derailing of that career is the essence of the story of Lawrence's subsequent life. I'm aware that there are many things to be said about Lawrence's Premiership which are positive and I have reinstated the first reference to the Easton affair later in the article where it chronologically belongs. (Now that you've added some things which can rightly precede it.) I would agree that there are many expansions to be made to this article, but I'm convinced that the Easton affair material is a legitimate inclusion at this stage. If you still disagree, I'd like to take it to the community at the Western Australian Wikiproject. Retarius | Talk 06:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm agreeing with Retarius. Lawrence's federal political career derailment was in many people's eyes nearly as significant as her term of Premiership and IMO does deserve expanded coverage here. An honest biography needs to explain these events comprehensively. WP:WEIGHT is not an issue with Retarius's proposed text. I try to avoid quoting policies, but WP:SUMMARY supports this with Easton affair now written. —Moondyne click! 07:11, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
There is already the article on the Easton affair. Addressing this briefly - I didn't remove the Easton section - I consolidated two disparate paragraphs into one larger one, while removing the more contentious stuff which disagreed with the published sources - it is still important due to the media attention it got, but it got practically ignored at the time it actually happened mainly as too much else was going on, and became a bigger issue only after she'd moved on to Federal politics. When I first came to the article last night it seemed to suggest that Easton was about the only thing that happened during her three-year premiership, hence the comments on "undue weight". Let's not forget that she was never alleged to be the key protagonist - the worst they entertained was that she was aware of it - John Halden was a lot closer to it and endured more critical findings than did Lawrence. Orderinchaos 07:19, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks to you both for the foregoing. OIC, I simply forgot to incorporate the name of Halden into the reinstated passage. As to "Mahon" in Easton's name; there's a guy named Brian William (? I think) Easton, who was general manager for the Rottnest Island authority. The West Australian agreed to add in the middle names whenever reporting either of them to save the second guy always copping abusive and threatening messages. I think that, as this topic is of interest to Western Australian readers, we should preserve that practice. Retarius | Talk 08:12, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Ah no worries, I was unaware it was a convention :) Orderinchaos 09:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
Heheh I am sure the ghost of the late paddy obrien will be making its various comments about most of this over a nice red wine over there on the other side SatuSuro 08:24, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
I checked - Paddy died in 1998. Pre-Wikipedia. What a wild time we missed. Retarius | Talk 08:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

"Easton" or "Campbell"?[edit]

I'd like to determine once and for all what the deceased wife of B. M. Easton should be called. My understanding is that it should be "Campbell" in respect for her obvious wishes and those of her family. I don't know what stage the famous divorce proceeding was at, but if final decree had been made, it seems pointless to keep calling her "Easton". The "Easton affair" I believe, is an eponym of B. M. Easton. (Unless the "Easton affair" article is now declared "black", I'd point out that the link is gone again and should be restored.) Retarius | Talk 08:29, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It is WP:OR to assert what her wishes may have been - almost all published sources I can find say "Penny Easton". With the new BLP rules we have to be scrupulously careful about making assertions which do not emanate from reliable sources. In addition, care should be taken to adhere to the undue weight section of the NPOV policy with regards to this event in the context of the biography. Orderinchaos 10:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)
I've restored the Easton affair link. If it's legitimate to have an article on the topic...
On the original research aspect: I'm only considering what I've always thought was Jim's main point about biography: "Do no harm." (I didn't actually need a certain scribe to point this out to me on the Blackburn article's talk page.) I said I didn't get into the policy stuff very deeply. That doesn't mean that I regard it with contempt or that I didn't take note of the most important points. The deceased never expressed her views publicly about this name issue in the few days between when the world at large noticed her existence and when she died. I don't know what sources you are referring to as authority and I'm not the type that plasters "citation needed" all over people's work. I'd like to know where you believe the respectable source is on this. I think we're agreed that what the media cobbled together and stuck with from inertia isn't a basis for anything. This has nothing to do with Carmen Lawrence one way or the other. The surname used for this person probably matters to her family. That's a good enough reason for it to matter to me and you. Retarius | Talk 06:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no it isn't - we follow Wikipedia policy and guidelines (WP:OR, WP:RS) in determining these things, not unverifiable offline intangibles. Penny Easton is used even by the ABC, but also by Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, News.com.au, the Australian Parliamentary bulletin, the Canberra Times, Post Newspapers and several academic papers which turn up on GALE Academic OneFile. Penny Campbell turns up on pages you have edited here, your blog, and a single AAP feed on 23 January 1999. Orderinchaos 13:09, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Easton, per OIC. Here, Google is as good a guide as any. Campbell returns 7 hits while Easton returns 336. This ties with my own recollections also. Moondyne 14:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

A message from Retarius[edit]

  • I don't want to bang on ad nauseam about this, but I'll just put on the record here what I've said elsewhere. This is for the benefit of anyone who scopes this page; casual readers, other editors, administrators, whoever: I dislike Carmen Lawrence. I have never made a secret of it. I've laid it out in my declared blog in unmistakeable terms. If I'm pushing a secret anti-Lawrence agenda here, I'm using a very inefficient method.
  • This article was obviously going nowhere until I gave it a kick a few weeks ago. It was in a deadlocked and lousy state and the only thing its condition did was bring attention to the controversies surrounding Lawrence. The deadlock was due to certain persons using up all the available Wiki-energy by trying to turn the article into a platform for attacking Lawrence. One actually, eventually, admits in the last part of the first section of this talk page to trolling in order to goad Hesperian. It's also obvious that this article's history file and its talk page are infested with the results of one-off attack-edits by Lawrence-haters and various sockpuppets thereof.
  • Carmen Lawrence was a Premier of Western Australia. To me, a Western Australian, that is notability enough. Many things happened during the years that she was in Parliament and I do not doubt or deny that good and useful things are among them. I want to see this article three times the length it is now and stuffed with useful and well-sourced material for the benefit of people who would like to use Wikipedia to assist in the study of the history of W.A. There are some very trivial (alright, in my opinion) figures of US politics, for example, who have much more impressive articles. Whatever I think of their morals or competence, all of the Premiers of W.A. should have articles on this site that are worthy of Featured Article status. I'm not interested in trying to use them to propagandise to the people who read them. Let the balanced facts speak for themselves. I've also got enough sense to recognise that in the very long run my earnestly-held opinions may be proven utterly wrong. After all, quite a few people have got me wrong on this and related matters. Retarius | Talk 06:30, 25 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it goes without saying that if you have expressed such strong opinions in the public arena on a subject, and it is the opinion of others that your editing on the area fails to reflect a neutral point of view and wanders into ownership, which effectively prevents others from correcting excesses or being heard, that you should by right leave the editing of these things to others who are able to deal with the consequences of their editing without having to worry about conflict of interest. I have particularly strong opinions, and have expressed them elsewhere, on four particular topics (none of which are political, by the way) which I scrupulously avoid for the most part, beyond simple monitoring of the topics for cruft, vandalism and such. Failure to do so is simply asking for trouble (not to mention topic bans and other such remedies). Orderinchaos 13:17, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
Sadly, I suspect such advice is water off a duck's back to Retarius, but he does need to understand that there are by necessity going to be limitations to his contributions here. Policies like conflict of interest are going to be forever thrown at him while he contributes to articles in which he holds strong and public views. His contributions will always, under the terms of our policies be liable for extra scrutiny and possible quick reversion with minimal justification. Ultimately the editing privilege may be removed if his contributions become disruptive. Retarius, hats off to you for declaring your bias, but please do read that policy from top to bottom to understand where we're coming from. And do at least consider the advice above [from OIC]. Moondyne 14:42, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
The only problem with the above advice from OIC is that he doesn't declare his own views re the subject or specify why he thinks I'm trying to slant this article. I ask this question: Why has he deliberately removed a legitimate link to a legitimate article on two occasions? His remarks are merely reducible to one thing: He refuses to accept that I am acting in good faith. You can throw around as many links to acronyms as you like, but in plain English, he is calling me a liar. Well, here's a suggestion: submit this article for review by three genuinely uninvolved foreign editors who haven't got a clue who these people are. Let's see who they think is coatracking. If you want to revert this article to where it was before I touched it be my guest. I'm sure Andrew Bolt and his friends will be delighted to see it. Retarius | Talk 06:23, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Conflict of interest implies, by its very nature, a strong interest (and of course by interest I do not mean "I am interested in..."). I do not have any abiding outside interests which would require me to declare one, although I have some outside interests on non-political topics which I deliberately avoid for that very reason. Much of my work has been defending articles about figures from both sides of politics from partisan or loaded contributions, in many cases against users who went on to be banned or indefinitely blocked. I have not "deliberately removed" anything - I strongly believe in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, if properly enforced, as being the only real way of ensuring things here do not become unstuck. As a student of politics I really do wish to see Wikipedia produce a resource that we can use to disprove those who say Wikipedia cannot be a reliable resource for students in this area. We need to ensure everything we do as editors makes it more so, and that nothing we do hinders it from becoming more so. Orderinchaos 09:37, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
This is a very fine statement of principle, and I'd like to thank Orderinchaos for making it. Retarius | Talk 09:15, 4 July 2008 (UTC)


Need More Information[edit]

Something more needs to be said about the Easton Royal Commission. The first paragraph is fine, but the second should make mention of her "I cannot recall" reply. Basically her defence is that she cannot remember what was said at the Cabinet meeting prior to the tabling of the petition. The Petition, let us remember, wasn't merely a local member action, but was seen as a means of damaging Richard Court when the ALP was looking down the barrel of an electoral loss. The lame "I cannot recall" line damaged her in the eyes of eastern staters, and lead to her being the butt of jokes on Full Frontal. It was this that derailed her political career, otherwise she may have replaced Beazley as ALP Leader instead of Simon Crean. It was the poor response more than the official findings of Sir Kenneth Marks which irrepairably damaged her credibility. I find that ironic since it was her ability to maintain her demure and master questioners (like Alan Carpenter) which contributed to her popularity in the first place. Some mention of the unconvincing "I cannot recall" should be included. To be honest, I think McGinty was the one who made the biggest goose of himself in that affair. He went around saying how "Carmen is innocent" and that it was only Cabinet confidentiality that prevented him from proving it, but once he was on the witness stand and under oath, he admitted that it may have been mentioned. Still his emabarrasing role is outside of this article.

Some mention should be made of the fact that the Joondalup Railway was a Dowding Government initiative. It is only hinted at in the article. I think that was one of the reasons why Dowding was able to squeak over the line (although not in terms of seats) and Lawrence lost. He gave a positive reason for returning his government, whereas Lawrence wouldn't, or couldn't.

Finally, I do think it should be mentioned that she was leading a minority government by the time of the 1993 election. She tried to oust 3 Ministers, long serving MPs, including Geoff Carr the Police Minister. But she mishandled it, and all 3 just resigned from the Party and sat on the cross benches. They did promise to support her on motions of confidence, which was how she survived as Premier until the end. But some mention should be made of this, as it demonstrates she wasn't as brilliant a politician as she is sometimes made out to be. There is plenty more I could say about her. Like the fact she tried, with some success, to present herself as not being a politician, even though she was an active party to the backstabbing of Dowding (genuinally backstabbing as he was at a Premier's conference at the time), to her expert handling of the media, more particularly one to one interviews particularly with Alan Carpenter. But I think one extra line on the Easton Affair, mentioning her botched sacking of those Ministers and how she took credit for the work of the Dowding Government on the Joondalup Railway should be sufficient. Basically Lawrence came close to making it to the very top, but her rise was aided by her being able to sweep things under the carpet, and some of them eventually caught up with her before she could really make it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.174.12.177 (talk) 00:22, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Carmen Lawrence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:44, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carmen Lawrence. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:05, 31 July 2017 (UTC)