Jump to content

Talk:2018 Liberal Party of Australia leadership spills

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


Ministers resigning but resignations not accepted

[edit]

The sub-section on ministerial resignations says Turnbull has not accepted the most recent resignations (yet). Does this mean anything? Seriously, can someone who doesn't want to remain a minister be forced to do so? HiLo48 (talk) 23:20, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's probably noteworthy that Turnbull isn't accepting them. Otherwise I'm in favour of treating them as if they have resigned. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:31, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The only sourced fact is that they have offered their resignations, and that Turnbull has accepted Dutton's and Fiaverranti-Wells'. There is clearly an effort to lean on some of them to stay on, which appears to have worked in at least some cases. Essentially there is a lot of confusion about whether, and how many of, the others are in fact still in the ministry. Claiming that ministers "are resigning" who are in fact now not resigning is spreading misinformation. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:42, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. It's hard to keep up. And I think you're right on the money with "there is a lot of confusion". HiLo48 (talk) 23:45, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By offering their resignations they are resigning. Even in the possibility they end up withdrawing their resignations, they are still resigning, although they have not resigned yet. Present tense is the correct tense here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:48, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are we sure about Fiaverranti-Wells? It's not in the citation given. As for refusing to accept the resignations, keep in mind, Gillard refused Anthony Albanese's resignation, way back when... --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:51, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't agree at all. By offering their resignations they have offered to resign. They have not done it, present tense. No reliable source is referring to these people as resigning and then coming back. Fieverranti-Wells' resignation being accepted is in all of today's press - e.g. the first post in this morning's Guardian liveblog. There's no reason to get hasty about this stuff: we will obviously know within 24-48 hours which way these people have fallen and can clearly state the permanent situation then. In the meantime, we should report the facts: what is verified to have happened and the uncertainty surrounding it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:53, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They have not done it, but they are doing it, just as Albanese was resigning in 2012 and then changed his mind. So it's true they are resigning, but they have not resigned. As for Fierravanti-Wells, she has now officially moved to the backbench, while Seselja has remained on the frontbench, the Senate is currently assembling. When the House of Representatives begins their session, it should be clear then. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:59, 21 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The ABC's take is that these 10 have offered their resignations, but Turnbull has not accepted any beyond Dutton's and Fieverranti-Wells'. (Thanks for the guardian source, Drover's Wife). It looks like Turnbull's trying to pull the party together against a premature election and the possibility of PM Shorten. [1] --122.108.141.214 (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Offering their resignations is not the same as resigning. Why not wait, what's the rush to be inserting text that is changing by the minute.Merphee (talk) 01:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Offering resignation is very much part of the resigning process. Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
And I repeat something from my initial comment.... Seriously, can someone who doesn't want to remain a minister be forced to do so? HiLo48 (talk) 02:56, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, but this is the difference between Fieverranti-Wells, who intently burned her bridges on the way out, and the others, with who it was more along the lines of what Merphee said below. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In Australia, a minister is appointed by the Governor General. A real resignation would be delivered to the Governor General. Offering a resignation is a common political gesture, the recipient can accept of refuse the resignation. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Albanese stayed: the option is to stay on as ministers or to take their bat and ball and go to the backbench... [2] The other option would be resigning altogether, but after Super Saturday, they wouldn't want to gift Labor with a majority? --122.108.141.214 (talk) 03:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resigning from parliament doesn't mean they stop being a minister. Albanese was resigning at one point, but changed his mind. Of course someone can't be a minister if they choose to resign, regardless of what the prime minister does. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Onetwothreeip you stated "By offering their resignations they are resigning". I disagree, the ministers were simply saying would you like me to resign Malcolm, not I am resigning Malcolm. Big difference. Also I do think we need to wait and leave these statements out of the article until we know and sources say who has resigned. We are not here to be providing a running commentary are we?Merphee (talk) 03:34, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merphee is correct. ABC News 24 is confirming that the others are staying on. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:36, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it is more like "I am resigning, would you like me not to?" but either way they are engaging in the process of resigning. Offering to resign is not asking if they want them to resign. It appears to most of them, Turnbull has said "I would like you not to" and they have decided to rescind their resignations, except for Dutton. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I totally disagree. Why don't you just wait a bit onetwothreeip. As I said we are not the media and until it's clear who has resigned and so far only 2 ministers have, so why are you so urgently wanting it in the article.Merphee (talk) 12:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Three now: Dutton, Fiaverranti-Wells, McGrath. The Drover's Wife (talk) 12:35, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Now five: also Sukkar and Seselja. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This will certainly change as time goes on, but we do our best to keep up. My main concern here was a definitional one. I still don't know what the difference is between resigning and offering one's resignation in this situation. Various interpretations here don't really help. I was looking for something more formal. HiLo48 (talk) 22:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless, the number keeps changing doesn't it. Why the rush? We are not the media.Merphee (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The media yesterday explained that Fiaverranti-Wells' was accepted because she was considered to have tendered her resignation, rather than offered it, and the media today are saying the others insisted their offers to resign be accepted - which the others did not do. That's about as formal as you're going to get. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:18, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The information we are getting is unclear. It is clear that Turnbull is trying to right the ship, while others are trying to destabilise the situation. I think it is better to repeat the reports rather than make sense of chaos. I think it's likely that Turnbull didn't want F-W!!! But that's just my opinion--Jack Upland (talk) 08:22, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Second spill

[edit]

If there is another spill today, just two days later, can I suggest we include it in this article? Maybe a second infobox? Creating a whole separate article seems excessive. Otherwise, how would we distinguish articles in their titles for two spills in the same month? Neegzistuoja (talk) 22:27, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. In the event of a second spill soon after, it should be included here and the title changed to spills. WWGB (talk) 23:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Liberal Party of Australia leadership spills, 2018. Also the 'Aftermath' section would have to be retitled, it will become not aftermath but the intermediate events. "Aftermath of first spill" is too long, but we need something like that. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:19, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think it depends on the timespan. If a spill proceeds today, then this should definitely be renamed as above. If it is delayed - especially any more than two weeks until the next sitting - then it's more likely to be seen as a separate thing and should be given a separate article as in other cases where multiple distinct spills have happened in the same year. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:20, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Surely we would have two separate articles if these fall on two separate months. We should be ready for a spill happening today, but if not today then it's unlikely to happen until September. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:24, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good to me. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:31, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's on right now, so "spills" rename it is (well, in an hour or two). The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:43, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hasn't been called yet, but is inevitable. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The 2015 spills (Abbott vs. an empty chair, Abbott vs. Turnbull) were discrete events, separated by about half a year. This is a single ongoing event, even if the dust settles in September. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 23:59, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is a second spill (increasingly likely), rather than having two separate infoboxes, could we have Votes (21 Aug) and Votes (23 Aug) in the same infobox at the top of the page? If we are treating these two spills as one event, that might make sense. Neegzistuoja (talk) 00:07, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It would be better to have two infoboxes, given that Turnbull won the first but Dutton will win the second. I can see what you mean, but these aren't two rounds of the same spill. It's very notable that these are two spills happening within two days of each other, I don't think that's happened before. There's also going to be the matter of the deputy leadership which should be considered part of the second vote but not the first. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:11, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yep. Two sections, two infoboxes. The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:31, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Probably with Morrison also. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:43, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

+1 for not creating a second article. Ivar the Boneful (talk) 02:52, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

[edit]

Can someone smart with tables please shift the table for the first spill downwards so that it can take up the whole width of the article, unimpeded by the infobox? Thanks. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Would be nice, yes.
Also, in this table, Kelly’ vote is not uncertain, it is verified as for Dutton. The verified vote is what should be reported here, not that there was a previous mistaken report. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:00, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What where the first round totals?

[edit]

Or was that information not released?--Apemonkey1 (talk) 07:37, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's in the article: D38, M36, B11. WWGB (talk) 07:42, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Wentworth by-election

[edit]

Do we really need speculation about the Wentworth by-election? Wikipedia is not news. Soon enough we will find what happened.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current wording is very poor - Turnbull has already said he's definitely going now and not waiting until the election. It's not really speculation - we know he's going, we know candidates are already expressing interest in the race, and it's clearly linked to the aftermath of this. The only unknown is the exact when. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:55, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The biggest speculation is about the possibility of the Liberals losing. It's unlikely, and there are a number of other unlikely things that could also happen.--Jack Upland (talk) 09:39, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you object to? Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:43, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the issue comes on the bit that says It has been noted that if Turnbull resigned from Parliament, a by-election would be held to replace him, potentially losing the one-seat majority of the Coalition. However, such a "speculation" is backed by sources (i.e. see The Guardian when it says that At the same time, [Turnbull] effectively left a time bomb for Dutton by saying he would leave parliament if he was turfed as prime minister. That would trigger a byelection and expose Dutton to the risk of losing his slender one-seat majority in the lower house and forcing him to an early election. While it is obvious this is no longer appliable to Dutton, if Turnbull keeps resigning his seat Morrison will face the same risk (even if it is a non so-high one due to it being a safe seat, though I guess the lack of an incumbency effect and the own dynamics of by-elections would also affect results). Nonetheless, I think this would be already solved with the indication of Wentworth's margin. Impru20talk 11:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the biggest problem is the discussion about the Coalition losing its one-seat majority. This could happen, but it's fairly unlikely. Why discuss it? This is then balanced by mentioning the margin in Wentworth. We could go on, and say that that margin was when Turnbull held the seat and that an independent could potential wrest it from the Liberals. And this could be countered by other points. But why have this speculation? It will be out of date in a couple of months. It adds nothing to this article. This seems a mindless case of repeating anything a media outlet said on the spur of the moment.--Jack Upland (talk) 12:27, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I totally agree with you Jack Upland. Very well put. It also is consistent with my point that we should be waiting and see what the majority of reliable sources say in due course. Things are changing by the second. We are not the media.Merphee (talk) 12:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The possibility of losing the government's majority is absolutely a factor and discussed basically everywhere that discussed Turnbull's intention to resign early. The Drover's Wife (talk) 16:49, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In 10 years time no one will be interested in what could have happened. They will only be interested in what did happen. The media love to speculate, but it's not appropriate in an encyclopedia.--Jack Upland (talk) 20:29, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We cover what reliable sources state about the topic, which is abundantly clear in this case. We don't need anything complex, we just need to mention - as everyone else does - that it risks the Coalition majority. It is absolutely and obviously relevant to the aftermath of the spill. (Despite speculation here, unlike if, say, Julie Bishop had resigned in Curtin, Wentworth is entirely losable in a number of circumstances - it certainly wasn't a safe seat when Turnbull originally won it.) The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:38, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I think that's an exercise in myth-making. The endorsed Liberal candidate has always won Wentworth, and usually he didn't have to go to preferences. All elections are loseable, and the Coalition could have lost any of the by-elections it has fought in recent times. OK, the speculation stays, but I hope someone remembers to come back and delete it in a few weeks when we know what really happened.--Jack Upland (talk) 22:41, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We should include in the aftermath that this has implications for the parliamentary majority, but I agree that we do not need to go into detail about the results of a by-election. That can be left for the by-election article. The fact that there is a by-election is big enough to be included here. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:13, 24 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Implications of any political turmoil is WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR. A politician said he intended to resign. Wait for it to actually happen. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:03, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure why we need to be stating it's a risk at all to be honest and we should definitely be waiting here. We don't even know if there is going to be a by-election. We are NOT the ALP here and using the situation as political point scoring are we? Let's remain neutral and just wait like we do in other articles. The Coalition looks much more solid and united than it was with Turnbull even a day after Morrison has got in.Merphee (talk) 05:16, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your sense of humour, Merphee. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:21, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The resigning alone has implications on the parliamentary majority, especially with other Coalition members saying they are moving to the crossbench. For whatever length of time the seat is vacant is time the government is down one seat, regardless of the by-election result. Onetwothreeip (talk) 05:23, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I seem to remember some commentary on the ABC 24 channel speculating that the Wentworth by-election seemed less likely now that Turnbull's preferred successor, Scott Morrison, is PM. Furthermore, the commentator speculated that Turnbull might resign at the general election to avoid giving Morrison drama. --122.108.141.214 (talk) 07:05, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All of which is speculation and POV. Turnbull has said nothing to vary his position. WWGB (talk) 07:30, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please define this term

[edit]

The phrase "party room" may be unfamiliar to many non-Australian readers. May we have a link to a definition, please? --Guy Macon (talk) 08:02, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

See party room. WWGB (talk) 08:09, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Americans would call it a caucus. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:11, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Who voted for whom in the second spill

[edit]

Just came across info of who voted for whom in the second spill although it is for the second round between Morrison and Dutton and not how they voted in the first round prior to Bishop's elimination and should be incorporated in this article: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/how-the-party-members-voted-in-the-liberal-leadership-contest-20180824-p4zzoc.html

122.106.83.10 (talk) 11:32, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018_Liberal_Party_of_Australia_leadership_spills&oldid=1196757642"