Talk:2012 Queensland state election

Abbreviation of two party preferred

Another user has raised that consensus is needed regarding the abbreviation of two party preferred in the polling section of this articles polling table. '2PP' to readers of this article may find just that simple term confusing as it only conveys the numbers and letters '2PP'. To the average or non-political wise reader. The whole term of 'Two party preferred' stated as such by Newspoll [1], the polls creator, fits neatly in the table and conveys, without causing any form of clutter or untidiness the whole meaning, which reduces confusion and makes the table easier to read. Романов (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

I think the best table usage is at Next Australian federal election#Polling Two party preferred adds unneeded and unwarranted coloured space to the article. The tables should be as small as possible as not to bloat the page. 2PP allows those two columns to remain as short as possible, as is the case in the example. If anyone is confused by it they can hover their mouse over it, or click it, for "two party preferred". It is a table, not a place for three word intercourse. Timeshift (talk) 06:45, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

However the three word intercourse adds roughly 2 mil either side of the collumns, nothing that is worth a full scale dispute, simply to reduce confusion. Unneeded or warrented colour? The colour of the title when linked shows the same colour as you propose when abbreviated.. :/ Романов (talk) 07:02, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

It should be as thin as possible. I removed the colours that added nothing to standardise to the Next Australian federal election article. It now looks much better. I hope you do not revert for the point of a revert, and allow an improvement. Timeshift (talk) 07:07, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

LNP leadership arrangement

See also Talk:Leader of the Opposition (Queensland) for some background. Just wanted to get some discussion happening on the LNP's leadership arrangements... more specifically, who should be listed as party leader in this article's election infobox? Jeff Seeney is being called the "interim" parliamentary leader, and I think should be listed as the Leader of the Opposition in Queensland and the leader of the party. However, Campbell Newman (pending his pre-selection for Ashgrove) is being referred to as leading the "election team", and has an arrangement for Seeney to cede the leadership to him. In other words, if Newman will be Anna Bligh's main "rival" in the next election, should he be in the infobox (pending aforementioned pre-selection and LNP leadership vote)? --Canley (talk) 02:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

It's a tough one. Yet again the LNP bowls us wikipedians for six. First it was the fact they'd stuffed up the presentation of federal election results, but now they go and have a parliamentary leader and a figurehead leader... two for the price of one indeed. Anywho, it's a tough one. I think that the LNP page should have the leaders seperated to show both Newman and the parliamentary leader. If we are parliamentary and not presidential, we would have Seeney in the election infobox. If we are more presidential, we would have Newman. Can we have both somehow? Perhaps their pictures on top of each other (or placeholders) and both their names? Consensus will definately be required on this, but in the meantime I don't think there's a harm in anyone being bold, until it is disputed... what will also be interesting is that by all rights, Seeney will be the one they poll for Preferred Premier and satisfaction ratings! Timeshift (talk) 04:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I think we should have Newman in the infobox, as it's clear he's the opposition for Bligh in this election, and if the LNP win (and Newman is elected), he will be Premier. Putting Seeney in the infobox confuses that fact.  -- Lear's Fool 09:40, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Until Campbell wins a seat and becomes an MP, is elected as leader of the LNP, and becomes her majesty's loyal opposition leader, he can't possibly be considered as such! Westminster dear boy! :) Timeshift (talk) 12:03, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Whether or not he's listed as Opposition Leader is a different question (and one on which we agree). As I understand it, we're not discussing who we should list as opposition leader, we're trying to decide who should be in the infobox as the "leader" of the LNP in the context of the election (which is obviously Newman). Look at it this way: who will we put in the infobox after the election?  -- Lear's Fool 12:07, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Seeney. He is/will have been the parliamentary leader of the LNP. Campbell may get elected at the election. But if he's not in parliament, it would set a dangerous precedent to pre or retrospectively apply Campbell. So, is Campbell to the LNP like Santamaria is to the DLP? :) Timeshift (talk) 00:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Again, I'm not saying he's the parliamentary leader, I'm saying he's obviously the "leader" of the LNP in the context of this election (which is what this article is about). Even Seeney has come out and said as much.  -- Lear's Fool 01:11, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

But the leader is the parliamentary leader in our Westminster system. This is where the conundrum in this Australian-first lies. If the LNP had half a brain they'd jettison an old seatwarmer in a safe LNP seat and get Newman in on a by-election. I'm actually of the opinion that this will happen. Too much time will be concentrated on their confusing arrangements and not the performance of the Bligh Labor government and they will eventually wake up to themselves. I know apolitical people in QLD that don't have much time for politics, but they say they won't vote for Campbell because it's a very arrogant and presumptuous proposition when he isn't even in parliament. Can I ask, if we happened to add smaller parties to election infoboxes, ie: the DLP in the federal 50s/60s elections, would you support the parliamentary leader in the infobox, or Bob Santamaria? Timeshift (talk) 01:15, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you both make good points. However we can't presume we know exactly what will happen. It might be best to list Newman once he is running for a seat. - Shiftchange (talk) 05:04, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable. I still think he should be listed as "leader" closer to the election, but I suppose we should at least wait until he's preselected.  -- Lear's Fool 05:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Shiftchange, how does being a person not in parliament but a candidate for a seat make him the leader of a political party in a westminster system? If the DLP was part of the infoboxes in the 50s/60s federal articles, would you prefer Bob Santamaria over the DLP parliamentary leader? How about we cast our eyes beyond our borders and have a look at how other westminster election articles do it? I haven't looked but i'm fairly sure i'd come up trumps. However, i'm still of the view that another possible solution is to create a parliamentary leader and a party/figurehead/whatever leader, so both can be included. But it would require infobox skills, creativity, and consensus. Timeshift (talk) 05:29, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Four things. Firstly, Newman isn't a just a "party figurehead", he's going to be the alternate premier. Secondly, Santamaria was never even a member of the DLP, so that's obviously different. Thirdly, as Antony Green points out here, it is not impossible for someone not in parliament to be the "leader" of a party in a Westminster system: it's happened in Canada plenty of times. Finally, Seeney himself has indicated that Newman will be the leader in the context of the election.  -- Lear's Fool 05:55, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

1) What if Newman doesn't win Ashgrove but the LNP wins government? It's all ifs and buts. We do not WP:CRYSTAL. 2) My point stands. 3) Let's find all examples and then see if we're comparing apples with oranges or not. 4) The Westminster system vs politician spin - stop the presses! But the extent of this one certainly is a contender with Abbott's effort last August! Timeshift (talk) 06:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Hello, sorry to intrude, I skimmed over this and here's my 2 cents. A few scenarios can happen in this election:

1. Labor wins election, Newman doesn't get seat
2. Labor wins election, Newman gets seat
3. LNP wins election, Newman doesn't get seat
4. LNP wins election, Newman gets seat

In the first 2 scenarios, it will be Anna Bligh vs Jeff Seeney no matter what happens, and perhaps Bligh vs Newman in the 2015 or whatever election. In 3 it will also be the same since Newman doesn't get his seat and Seeney become premier. In 4, Jeff Seeney still wins the election, BUT IS TAKEN OVER BY NEWMAN STRAIGHT AFTER. So technically, Newman isn't elected "in his own right" but rather did a "partyroom coup d'etat" on Seeney despite it being consensual. So hence the article should remain as-is, except maybe someone should go take a photo of Seeney. Dengero (talk) 00:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

I tend to agree. It's simply logical common sense. Timeshift (talk) 02:26, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Can we vote to censure the LNP for being a persistent nuisance to Wikipedia? Honestly, you'd think they'd have thought of this before they went ahead and made a decision. Seriously, though, both sides make really good points here. However, as Seeney is recognised officially as the Leader of the Opposition, we have to go with him - although obviously with a note about the Newman situation. Frickeg (talk) 08:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Here's some bed-time reading that solidifies the fact that Campbell should never appear in the infobox in this article...[2][3] Timeshift (talk) 11:54, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I have to point out here (again) that my argument is not that Newman is Opposition Leader, it's that he's obviously leader of the LNP in the context of this election. He's clearly not Opposition Leader, and shouldn't be listed as such. I think this is a discussion of the "spirit" of the infobox: are we listing the technical Leader of the Opposition, or are we listing the actual "leader" of the LNP in the context of this election. If the consensus here is to go with the technical position, that's fine, but I can't help feeling that listing Newman more accurately reflects the state of this election (and hence is more informative for our readers).  -- Lear's Fool 12:12, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I could go over all of my arguments and point out Antony's link again but I won't... I think you'll find you won't get consensus for using Campbell in the infobox. Sorry, it's just not cricket. Timeshift (talk) 12:18, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Forgive me, Timeshift, but I don't feel you've responded to the substance of my argument. Do you disagree that listing Newman as "leader" (which is not the same as Leader of the Opposition) reflects more accurately on the state of the election? Or is it that you believe we should only list the person in the official position of Leader of the Opposition?  -- Lear's Fool 12:21, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I've already made that clear. Her majesty's loyal opposition leader is Seeney and if Campbell gets there it will still have been Seeney. Timeshift (talk) 12:26, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Right. Well I don't see what is preventing us, in this very unusual situation, from listing someone other than Her Majesty's loyal opposition leader, given that it would provide a more informative and accurate summary of the election to our readers.  -- Lear's Fool 12:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

But then it sets a dangerous precedent. We should not allow a party to dictate to us who gets the infobox. The infobox has always consisted of the premier/PM and the opposition leader. It shouldn't happen for all the reasons above, but if you still think otherwise, I guess we agree to disagree. But without consensus to change from the status quo, I guess it remains as is... the opposition leader in the opposition leader's box. I reckon JPL would agree too :) Timeshift (talk) 01:47, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

For what it's worth, or rather not, this situation is not unprecedented in terms of other elections that have happened during the life of Wikipedia. Annoyingly very few of them offer enlightenment. The last Scottish election was won by a leader who hadn't been in the parliament for six years and whose party had a separate parliamentary leader; annoyingly the infobox wasn't in use before polling day. The Irish general election, 2007 shows Gerry Adams in the infobox as Sinn Féin leader despite the fact he didn't even run in that election although he did take part in the smaller parties' leaders' debate, in the 2011 election he transferred to the Dail but is still in the box for Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2011 where he isn't a candidate - making the LNP situation look simple by contrast! A number of the Canadian election boxes include leaders outside the parliament in question, but usually their party is also shut out; I can't find a recent Canadian election where a major party leader was not yet an MP (whether through deliberate decision or the election overtaking any by-election). Jack Layton wasn't an MP until the 2004 election but again the box wasn't used before hand although Layton was listed as leader in the table rather than whoever the NDP parliamentary leader was. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:42, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

As a Canadian, it is simple: to not include the party leader, and to pretend that the parliamentary leader is the party leader, is a terrible violation of NOPV. I'm tempted to add a tag to this page. Nickjbor (talk) 05:10, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

The issue isn't unique hear and I've started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Who should be listed as a party's leader?. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:54, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Add Pendulum

Would be worth adding the pendulum to the page rather than just the link,

See also: Post-election pendulum for the Queensland state election, 2009

? Purrum (talk) 05:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion that pendulums should only be added when they are not exceedingly long. IMHO (and the current status quo), the three eastern states and federal are too large to be on the one page, so they have a see also in the header of a section on their page for the pendulum. Timeshift (talk) 05:39, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Newman/Seeney

Given an election, by definition, sees Parliament dissolved and therefore no-one hold's seats it is hard to see how Seeney is a more legimate "alternative premier" ONCE the election is called. Saying "Newman might not win his seat!" is irrelevent in this context as for all we know (and it is extremely unlikely but relevent nonetheless) Seeney might not win his. Therefore I propose once the election is called Newman replace Seeney at the top of the page.

Until that happens Seeney should remain. 121.216.154.90 (talk) 03:39, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I didn't realise there was a position called alternative premier? There is however a position called leader of the opposition, which newman isn't. Timeshift (talk) 04:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

To the OP - Your first sentence is wrong. Members do not lose their seats when an election is called. The leader of the opposition remains leader of the opposition until he ceases to be either leader or a member of the opposition. HiLo48 (talk) 07:51, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I would suspect the OP is not being balanced in his (false) assumptions either. Exhibit A. Timeshift (talk) 08:14, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

This is completely out of step with how other election articles are handled. The person in the infobox should be the leader of the party, i.e., the person who will be in charge of the party during the election that the article is about. In this case, that is Newman. Note that the infobox says "Leader", not "Parliamentary leader". The identity of the Leader of the Opposition is irrelevant. As such, I will replace Seeney with Newman, with "Running in Ashford" for the constituency parameter. Again, this is how the situation is handled at other election articles. -Rrius (talk) 04:15, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

I have reverted your change, which had no consensus. You refer repeatedly to "other election articles", without listing any. I am not aware of any "other election articles" describing elections where a party "leader" was not even a member of parliament. Please share them with us. HiLo48 (talk) 08:43, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Within Australia there doesn't seem to be any article with precedence on this either way because in just about every other election with an article the same person was party leader and leader of the opposition. Antony Green looked for a precedent and the nearest was New South Wales colonial election, 1898 when the Protectionists were led by Edmund Barton who had just resigned from the Legislative Council, rather than William Lyne who had been the opposition leader in the outgoing Assembly. [4] And we don't yet have an article on that one so there's no infobox to argue over there.

(We also don't appear to have any articles on Brisbane council elections, another possible cause of confusion because the Lord Mayor is directly elected and doesn't necessarily come from within the council - Newman himself wasn't a councillor was he?)

Examples in other countries include:

The Irish elections of 2002, 2007 and 2011 when Sinn Fein were led by Gerry Adams, a member of the UK Parliament who didn't even stand for the Irish Parliament until 2011 (but was in the 2007 & 2011 leaders' debates).

Lots of Canadian elections. Canada has a long tradition of people outside the relevant parliament winning the party leadership. Some get elected in by-elections, others wait for the next election like Newman. Federal examples of the latter include 1962 (Tommy Douglas was the leader of the New Democratic Party without an existing seat), 1993 (Preston Manning of Reform), 2005 (Jack Layton of the NDP) and the big one was 1984 when the new Prime Minister, John Turner didn't have a seat until the election despite having already formed a government.

Germany is even worse as the posts of "leader in the Bundestag", "leader of the party" and "candidate for Chancellor" can be held by different people, with state premiers sometimes running direct for the Chancellorship. One case was the 1998 federal election when the Social Democratic Party's Chancellor candidate was the premier of Lower Saxony whilst the SPD leader was the premier of Saarland and I'm not sure who had been the Bundestag leader beforehand.

...and probably others as well. In all the cases above it's either the Chancellor candidate (Germany) or the party leader (otherwise) and not the separate pre-election parliamentary leader who is the person listed in the infobox.

The international precedents seem to favour listing Newman not Seeney, whilst national precedents are non-existent. Hmm... Timrollpickering (talk) 22:39, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

In addition, there is the Green Party Leader in Canada, who was listed until the election as "Running in Saanich—Gulf Islands". This may be a new situation for Queensland, but it is not new in the Westminster system, nor is Wikipedia unable to deal with it. If you go around and look at other jurisdictions with similar systems of government, you will see, as Tomrollpickering and I have pointed out, that this is the norm. It is clear that Newman was elected to be leader, but that Seeney is serving as "interim" (Seeney's word, not mine) Leader of the Opposition because the LO must come from the parliamentary party. This is an article about the election, not the current Parliament. It therefore only makes sense for the election leader to be in the infobox rather than the parliamentary leader. What do you plan to do if Newman and the LNP win? Leave Seeney in the infobox? That is irrational. Newman is the election leader, so should be listed as the leader in the election's infobox. As such, I am going to restore my edit. If you revert it again, I will add both of them, along the lines of how Green dual leaders are dealt with. You say there is no consensus for my edit, but there is really no consensus for your edit either. -Rrius (talk) 04:28, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

What's more, it is Newman, not Seeney, who led Bligh 49–35% in the most recent PP polling. -Rrius (talk) 04:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Aggressive, bullying style posting, by definition, can never achieve consensus. I won't even try to debate such material. HiLo48 (talk) 05:59, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Polling does not tell us who the leader of her majesty's loyal opposition is. This sort of argument is unicorn-type stuff. Try better please. BTW, there is no consensus for the change, and without it, the status-quo must remain. Timeshift (talk) 07:23, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

The whole idea of a two party election with an "opposition" and two leaders fighting to win is not a useful concept. To my knowledge an "opposition" is not mentioned in the constitution. This is a construct on which Wikipedia should be more neutral. An election article with only two leaders so strongly portrayed like this is a point of view. - Shiftchange (talk) 07:57, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Which constitution? Presumably it's the Queensland one that applies here. I know nothing about it. How about you? HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I still think Newman should be in the infobox, as he is clearly the leader of the LNP in the context of this election, although I would be happy with some kind of compromise solution (perhaps with a dual photo or something?). The argument that Newman is not "Leader of the Opposition" is a straw man: nobody's claiming that he is. Rather, in this rare case, the Leader of the Opposition is not the leader of the party in the context of the election.  -- Lear's Fool 08:08, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

One problem is that Newman isn't even a member of parliament. It's possible that the LNP could win this election and Newman not win a seat, and hence not become Premier. Some here are suggesting that Wikipedia is taking a non-neutral position, but in a way, to push the party's non-standard position on Newman is doing some of its marketing for it. That's non-neutral. This is another case where the necessarily simplistic Infobox doesn't really tell readers enough of the story to tell them what's really going on. HiLo48 (talk) 11:11, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

This is not my point, but what do we do if the LNP win and Newman becomes Premier? These permutations are irrelevant: whether he wins the seat or loses the seat, Newman is leader in the context of the election. The suggestion that listing him as such would be marketing for the LNP is drawing a very long bow. I would be willing to do something unorthodox like have a combined picture for the LNP leader, and list the leader as "Newman/Seeney", but I agree that the current infobox is misleading for our readers. And by-the-by, the word "opposition" does not appear in the Queensland constitution.  -- Lear's Fool 11:43, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

You people aren't addressing the main point. This article is about an election. The infobox is a summary of the article. In the context of the election, the leader of the LNP is Newman. It really is as simple as that. Moreover, though Timeshift and HiLo choose to dismiss it, the infobox is clearly supposed to show the alternative candidates for premier. That is why Better Premier polling is included. By presenting Seeney as the LNP leader in the infobox, you two are suggesting that Seeney will lead the party during the election, that he is the person the LNP is presenting to Queensland as a choice for premier, and that he is the person getting 49% in Better Premier polling. Three of us are putting up sensible arguments, but you two just can't manage. HiLo, after struggling, has suggested that it is somehow not neutral to put Newman in because he might not win a seat. So what? Bligh and Seeney might lose their seats. That objection means exactly nothing. What's more, your preferred presentation choice, by implying that Seeney would become Premier in the event of an LNP victory gives an even worse result in the case of an LNP win and Newman loss. Seeney has said he won't take the job, so the infobox would be awfully confusing. With Newman in the box, it would be more obvious: all you do is put "Lost Ashford" in the constituency field and deal with the resulting premier according to circumstances. Frankly, you two keep saying that there is no consensus for the change, but you lot are outnumbered. With so few people involved at the article, I think we do have consensus. -Rrius (talk) 05:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Again, your posting style will win no friends. I am not pushing any POV. You have made assumptions about my intentions which are just plain wrong. I am happy to discuss, but not to be bullied. Oh, and "you lot are outnumbered" again tells me that you don't understand how consensus is achieved. HiLo48 (talk) 05:29, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

Your response to a call to address the points put to you is to... not address the points. I'm not asking you to be my friend, and I ascribing motives to you, so try not putting words in my mouth. You say you are "happy to discuss", but you have not bothered to dispute our main argument, that this is an election article and should therefore show the man who is explicitly called the election leader in the infobox, despite its being put to you several times. Instead you fixate on how much you don't like me. Since you won't take the fact that we have a very small number of participants in the discussion as enough to prevent two active editors from defending a status quo against greater numbers and you aren't willing to discuss the actual merits of the arguments, I am giving notice that barring some real discussion from your end very soon, I will start an RFC, say, tomorrow. -Rrius (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry you have take offense, but I think you are acting thin skinned. I went back to look at what I said to prompt your comment about "aggressive, bullying style posting", and here's what I said to get that rather harsh review: "As such, I am going to restore my edit. If you revert it again, I will add both of them, along the lines of how Green dual leaders are dealt with. You say there is no consensus for my edit, but there is really no consensus for your edit either." Aggressive and bullying? I'm sorry, but I don't see it. Even if that could rationally be taken as anything like what you called it, you ignored the arguments I put forward despite your supposed willingness to discuss the issues.

Then you used the same terms to describe my contribution of 05:18 on 23 August. What drew that response? I said you had "struggled" to find a response to one argument and, "Frankly, you two keep saying that there is no consensus for the change, but you lot are outnumbered." Again, that is neither aggressive nor bullying, yet instead of giving an actual response, you implied that I accused you of POV pushing (I didn't), stated that I made certain unstated assumptions about your motives (I didn't, don't know what those motives would be, and can't understand from reading what I wrote what you could possibly have inferred), and called me a bully who won't win friends.

I do understand how consensus is formed. It is formed through discussion of the topic, something you have been unwilling to do. I noted the practice at other articles, and you asked for proof. Tomrollpickering provided a variety of cases, and you ignored it. I provided more and made the central argument, and you called me a bully. Lear's Fool made the argument, and you sidestepped. I pointed out that you and Timeshift were not addressing the argument, and you again called me a bully without any attempt at responding to the arguments. Consensus is also formed through compromise. Lear's Fool and I have both suggested a compromise of putting both in the infobox (as Green's are treated where they have dual leaders), which you ignored. I choose to believe that you are thin-skinned and, as such, easily distracted from the issue. I choose to believe because the alternative is that you are gaming the discussion by avoiding the call to respond to arguments put before you through a subtle ad hominem. Again, I don't think that's what you're doing. I'm sure you will start to respond to the arguments that have been put before you as to why some of us believe Newman is the rational choice for the infobox.

I would also like to repeat that I am sorry I have given you offense. My frustration rose with the lack of responsiveness, and I am sure (while I reject "aggressive" and "bullying") that frustration crept into my tone. Doing the three of us who have principally put forward the case for Newman the courtesy of addressing why the leader of a party for the election shouldn't be called the leader in the election's infobox would go a long way toward eliminating that frustration and lowering the temperature. -Rrius (talk) 04:45, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

What's with the edit warring? The person advancing the Newman case must understand that they must cease forcing their changes. On this page, Seeney is the status quo, Newman is the desired change of a user. As the change to Newman is disputed, the status quo must remain until another consensus is achieved. The page must remain on Seeney for the moment. Timeshift (talk) 06:18, 23 August 2011 (UTC)

The edit warring is the result of the fact that only two editors are actively "defending" the status quo, but without even bothering to dispute the central argument put to them. -Rrius (talk) 04:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I think I am perceived to be one of those editors. Rather than actively defending the status quo, I am condemning the appalling quality of the efforts to convince others that they should change their view. It's possible that I could be convinced to take a different view, but not by the behaviour seen here so far. Oh, and by the way, consensus is not defined by majority vote. Many times in my life I have been in a minority, and right. HiLo48 (talk) 05:25, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Having consensus doesn't make you right, and being right doesn't give you consensus. My point is that with five editors debating a topic and two simply stating the status quo shouldn't change without giving any reasons, the real consensus is with the three who propose change. Anyway, we have put the question to you several times in several ways, but you haven't answered: this is an election article and Newman is the election leader, so why should he not be the leader listed in the infobox? I'll put it another way: Bligh will face off against Newman at the next election, each putting him- or herself forward as the best choice as Premier, so why shouldn't Newman be in the infobox? Another way—even if the LNP wins and Newman loses, Seeney says he has no plans to be Premier, so why should Seeney be in the infobox. Yet another—Your argument above boils down to Newman is not an MP and Seeney is the Leader of the Opposition, but this article is not about the current Queensland Parliament or the leadership of the Parliamentary LNP; rather, it is about the election, so why should the parliamentary leadership of the LNP in this parliament be relevant to the election that ensues after Parliament is dissolved? Answer whichever you like, but for God's sake answer one. -Rrius (talk) 06:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't like it when debates boil down to this where typically both sides puts their argument forth and then say the other isn't putting any argument forth or havent responded to their argument. Consensus is hard to produce with this blinkered rigidity, and isn't conducive for achieving anything. There is dispute in changing from the status quo - therefore the page needs to remain on status quo until alternative consensus is achieved. The ignoring of this policy and subsequent edit wars have greatly reduced the chances of a satisfactory outcome for both sides. Timeshift (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

First, that isn't what's happening here. One side is ignoring the arguments of the other. Those arguing for a change have answered every argument put forth by you and HiLo. The reverse has not been true. What's more, it isn't a case of "blinkered rigidity", at least not on the pro-change side. Two of us have proposed putting both in the infobox, a proposal that has been studiously ignored to this point. It is true: on the one hand, the onus is on those proposing change to establish that things should change. That said, it is incumbent upon those supporting the status quo to defend it rather than simply sidestepping the question with personal attacks and procedural squabbling. I have, several times now, asked you two to answer our central argument. I even provided four alternative ways to do so. Please answer. -Rrius (talk) 07:08, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

That is completely the issue here. Your questions have been answered. You appear incapable of taking them as valid answers because you are dismissive of what some view what the Leader of the Opposition in parliament is. Every view and answer is valid. Another case in point... Talk:South Australian state election, 2014. It has been agreed that Weatherill will take over from Rann in several weeks. Should we change the leader on this page now? Of course not. As of today, 24 August 2011, Rann remains Labor leader and Premier. Until the changeover, Weatherill could fall ill, get hit by a bus, say something bad enough to destroy his image with voters, or heck, even a state double dissolution which can theoretically happen. The same is here. Seeney is leader of the opposition, Newman will not be, nor Premier, until after the election, assuming the LNP wins. This is a perfectly justifiable stance. Just because you decide it is not valid or doesn't answer your argument, then i'm sorry, but you can't just dismiss it and engage in non-status quo edit warring which completely sours any chance of conducive consensus discussion. Timeshift (talk) 07:14, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I am ignoring your comments Rrius, and I will continue to ignore any more of what is posted by you while the bits that stand out are the completely unhelpful and effectively abusive expressions like "for God's sake answer", and "it isn't a case of blinkered rigidity, at least not on the pro-change side". Every single post you make contains an attack of some sort. Why should I try to read past such unacceptable discussion? If you cannot present your arguments politely, you definitely don't have consensus. HiLo48 (talk) 07:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

"For God's sake answer" has a pleading, not attacking, tone, and "blinkered rigidity" was quoting Timeshift. Unlike yours, "every single post" advances arguments for the position I support. If you can't be bothered to engage in a constructive discussion, why are still posting? -Rrius (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

(Edit conflict; drafted as a response to Timeshift before the addition of the part about Weatherill) No, you haven't. The only answer has been that Seeney is the Leader of the Opposition. There is no explanation in that as to why that fact should take precedence at the election article over who the election leader is. Here's a summary of the discussion so far:

1. An IP editor argues that, once the election is called, Newman should be in the infobox because he will be the alternative premier.
2. Timeshift responds saying there is no such thing as an alternative premier, only a Leader of the Opposition, and Newman isn't that.
3. HiLo takes issue with the characterisation that MPs are out of office at dissolution and note that the Leader of the Opposition retains that office until he is no longer leader [of the largest opposition party] or is no longer an MP.
4. Rrius notes that this is not an article about the current Queensland Parliament and that the practice at other elections where the leader of a party is a leader-outside-parliament, that leader, rather than the parliamentary leader, is listed with "Running in X".
5. HiLo asks for proof.
6. Tomrollpickering provides several items of proof.
7. Rrius provides an additional item of proof; reiterates the point that, despite the lack of Australian cases, this is how it is done for other Westminster parliaments; notes in passing that the infobox is designed for the election leader, pointing to the fact that Best Premier polling is included under the leaders; points out the logic of retaining Seeney leads to retaining him in the infobox even if Newman wins his seat and the election, becoming Premier; and proposes putting both LNP leaders in as a compromise.
8. HiLo calls the prior contribution "aggressive" and "bullying" and explicitly refuses to debate the arguments.
9. Timeshift says polling does make a person the Leader of the Opposition. [ed. I have avoided commentary and tried to keep these summaries neutral, but I have to say that Timeshift's characterisation bears no relation to what I said.]
10. Shiftchange makes what appears to be a side point about having two leaders in the infobox being POV and notes that "opposition" is not mentioned in the constitution.
11. HiLo responds saying that presumably he means the Queensland Constitution, notes his lack of knowledge on the topic and inquires into Shiftchange's.
12. Lear's Fool states that the argument that Newman isn't the Leader of the Opposition is a straw man since no one is arguing he is. He notes that Newman is the leader of the LNP in the context of this election and should therefore be in the infobox. He also says he'd support putting both in the infobox.
13. HiLo says it would not be neutral to put Newman in the infobox because he might not win his seat. He then said this is simply a case where the infobox is too simplistic to provide all the information.
14. Lear's Fool responded saying, "The suggestion that listing him as such would be marketing for the LNP is drawing a very long bow." Nonetheless, he agreed the infobox is simplistic and renewed the proposed compromise of putting both in.
15. Rrius rejoins the discussion, first rehearsing the argument that this is an election article, so the election leader should be in the infobox. Rrius also took issue with the POV argument, saying that Seeney or Bligh could just as easily lose there seats so HiLo's argument that Newman could lose his means nothing. He then noted that the status quo is misleading because it creates the impression that Seeney would become Premier if the LNP won and Newman lost, which is not the case; then noted that were Newman in the infobox, putting "Lost Ashoford" in the constituency field note whoever does become Premier in the resulting premier field.
16. HiLo says he takes umbrage at an unnamed POV allegation and at unnamed assumptions about his intentions.
17. Rrius (in two posts) takes issue with the allegations of bullying, POV allegations, and assumptions; expresses frustration at the lack of a response to the argument that this is an election article, so the leader mentioned in the infobox should be the election leader, not the parliamentary leader; and apologises for causing offense.
18. Timeshift, in a post that predated Rrius's two, decries edit warring and points out that a change requires consensus.
19. Rrius responds that the edit warring is the result of the fact that the two editors supporting the status quo will not respond to the central argument for change.
20. HiLo admits to not actively supporting the status quo, stating his preference for "condemning the appalling quality of efforts" on the other side.
21. Rrius complains that the central argument for change is still not getting a response and propounds four different iterations of the question he would like answered and begs for an answer.
22. Timeshift says he doesn't like when both sides put their arguments then accuse the other side of not responding; notes that "blinkered rigidity" is not conducive to consensus and again says that change requires consensus.
23. Rrius responds that only one side is refusing to respond, while the other has responded to each argument; notes that while the onus is no those arguing for change, those supporting the status quo must defend it; and again asks for a response to his question.
24. Timeshift says that Rrius is "dismissive of what some view what the Leader of the Opposition in parliament is" and that every view is valid.

That takes us to the present. I am not dismissive of what some view the Leader of the Opposition as. Indeed, that view is precisely what I'm begging for. So far, and if you don't believe my summary you can check for yourself, no one has explained what the "view of what the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament is" is. The closest we've had so far is that Newman is not the Leader of the Opposition and not an MP, therefore he can't be in the infobox. What we have not had is any explanation at all of why you two believe that and why it is unacceptable to at least add the election leader in addition to the Leader of the Opposition. In other words, why does not being the Leader of the Opposition in Parliament or an MP matter if your party chose you to lead it in the election? I beg you, please answer that question. -Rrius (talk) 08:17, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Regarding Weatherill: It is not as clear as you think, Timeshift. It has been handled both ways at different articles at different times, and each has its merits. In any event, the situation is not the same. Weatherill will become leader of the party and will be responsible for leading the party in the next election. Newman already is responsible for leading the party in the next election. -Rrius (talk) 08:21, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't read all of that but in the ones that started with my username, you've somewhat misrepresented and oversimplified what i've said. You look at the situation in a different hue. Rann aside, Weatherill will be party leader prior to and at the next election, as will Seeney. Weatherill will continue after the election, Seeney will step down as party leader and Newman is planned to become party leader, assuming he isn't hit by a bus, that he is elected to parliament in Ashgrove, and is voted in as party leader by the parliamentary party. It is a lot of if's and but's, the election pages have always had the current party leader. It's simple - we have different views. There will need to be more opinions and input from people. But policy still applies. Timeshift (talk) 11:33, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Similarly, "in the ones that started with my username, you've somewhat misrepresented and oversimplified what i've said". (Thanks for the words Mr T.) You have a style of debating that involves posting a lot of words that support your view, but not going to the trouble to really get the meanings others are trying to present. HiLo48 (talk) 11:38, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

In response to Timeshift, you wrote "Seeney will step down as party leader and Newman is planned to become party leader". Are you sure that currently Seeney and not Newman is the "leader of the Liberal National Party" - and specifically of the LNP as a whole, not just the parliamentary party? Because looking the LNP websites - appropriately they nominally have two, the main party site and the next election campaign site, but the internal links largely blur the distinction - it's Newman who is being presented as the "LNP leader". e.g. on the front page of the campaign site it displays (amongst others) "LNP Leader's Statement: Just vote one" in which Newman states "As Leader of the LNP..." Similarly on the candidate profile pages Newman's states "Campbell Newman is the Leader of the LNP and your CanDo Candidate for Ashgrove" and "As Leader of the Liberal National Party, Campbell Newman is drawing on his diverse experience to plan for Queensland’s future. Meanwhile Seeney's states "Jeff was elected Leader of the Opposition on 22 March 2011..." I don't know if the LNP have their constitution on line, but certainly their output seems clear in stating that Newman is the current leader. Timrollpickering (talk)

To quote WP:RS... Primary sources are often difficult to use appropriately. While they can be both reliable and useful in certain situations, they must be used with caution in order to avoid original research. Material based purely on primary sources should be avoided. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Newman is not the current parliamentary leader/leader of her majesty's loyal opposition at this time or before the election or at the election. Only afterward, on the assumptions of his election to parliament and an LNP win, can he be either of these, or Premier. Timeshift (talk) 04:41, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

First, none of the problems with primary sources are present here. Who its leader is is not something the party is likely to lie or be confused about. What's more, it's not actually clear that the party's website even is a primary source on this. A primary source would be minutes from the meeting where the election took place or a returning officer's report. Second, the infobox does not say "Leader of the Opposition"; it says "leader" and is in reference to the party, not the opposition. Third, I just read both the Constitution Act 1867 and the Constitution of Queensland Act. Neither appears to require the premier to be an MP, which washes away the complaint that his losing in Ashford would matter. The likeliest course for him in the case of an LNP win and Newman loss would be to become Premier, make one of his MPs create a by-election, then run in it that by-election himself. The same would be true for Bligh, for that matter.

Finally, I think the central misunderstanding here is that HiLo and Timeshift believe the infobox is supposed to reflect the current parliamentary leadership of the party, but that is not how election infoboxes are used. Rather, the election infobox is meant to reflect the leader who led the party during the election. For the pre-election period, that means identifying the person who will lead the party into the election. Of course we can't no for sure who will lead the party, the convention is to assume that the current leader will do so right up until the reliable sources say he or she won't. Here are some examples:

• When Ming Campbell resigned as leader of the UK's Liberal Democrats, he was dropped from the infobox. It being early days for the infobox, there was some discussion about whether Vince Cable, the acting leader, should be included, but it was quickly decided he should not. Instead, the line read "to be determined" with a link to the leadership election. Those supporting Cable did argue that since he was the current parliamentary leader he should be in; instead, the argued that if an election were called immediately, he would lead the Lib Dems in it. So even in that early era when how to deal with a leadership election was unclear, it was still understood that what was important was not the present, but the moment of the next election.
• After the May 2011 election in Scotland, the leaders of the Labour and Conservative parties both resigned. Labour's Gray announced he would resign in the autumn, and the Tories' Goldie announced she would resign effective upon the election of her successor. Both are, at the moment, still their parties' leaders, and both have been out of the infobox at Scottish Parliament general election, 2016 for some time.
• At the end of January, Ed Stelmach, the Premier of Alberta, announced he would be resigning at a future date. He was dropped as Progressive Conservative leader from 28th Alberta general election's infobox after a brief discussion about how to handle it. When the Leader of the Opposition announced a few days later that he was resigning with effect from the end of the spring session of Parliament, he was dropped as well.
• When Jose Zapatero, the PM of Spain, announced another MP would lead the party into the next general election (which at the time was still expected in 2012) but that he would remain PM until after the election, he was immediately replaced in the infobox.

I hope this gives a sufficiently global view of the situation and is found persuasive. The situation is admittedly odd in Australia. In almost all cases, changes happen fast enough that this isn't an issue, and seemingly in all cases but this one, the new leader comes from inside the parliamentary party. This is not so in the rest of the world. When Qld's LNP starts acting like parties from elsewhere, shouldn't editors here apply the rules used for elections around the world? -Rrius (talk) 04:11, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

The party's website is worse than your average primary source. It's goal is marketing, getting people to vote for the party. Obviously a completely biased source. Opinion polls have told the party that Newman will attract more votes, so that's who the site tells us is in charge. The second half of the first paragraph is pure speculation, and that's probably behind much of my concern here. Implying that Newman will be Premier is far more speculative than we normally see during elections. HiLo48 (talk) 06:12, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

They are calling him there leader because he was elected to lead them. Seeney is the interim leader of the caucus (he uses the word himself) because Newman isn't an MP—not because he is the real leader. No one anywhere has said that he, not Newman, is the real leader of the LNP, so it just isn't sensible to say that the LNP is lying about who its leader is for marketing purposes. As for speculation, the speculation is exactly the same with Bligh. If Labor wins, but she loses her seat, it is just the same as if the LNP win but Newman loses. I think you believe you are treating the parties alike, but you aren't. In any event, the more significant point is the one about how the election infobox is meant to work along with the proof offered up in support. Is there any response? -Rrius (talk) 06:48, 26 August 2011 (UTC)

It's not the same as Bligh at all. She is a member of parliament. Newman isn't. It's a huge difference. HiLo48 (talk) 01:41, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Not in terms of the election it isn't—she could just as easily lose her seat. -Rrius (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Seeney remains parliamentary leader of the LNP. The parliamentary leader is paramount in Australian politics. If Newman wins Ashgrove and the LNP wins the next election, the LNP say they will elect Newman as parliamentary leader. I imagine the LNP will move quick smart to get him to the parliamentary leadership so that the governor can approach Newman to form a government. Or anyone fancy a temporary Seeney duumvirate? So much speculation. Just like Weatherill. When it happens it happens, not beforehand. Timeshift (talk) 01:29, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

You are missing the point. You are hung up on "is" and "parliamentary". This is an article about an election. When the infobox mentions the leader, it is not talking about the person who is now the leader of the party. Instead, it is talking about person who will lead the party into the election the article is about. I have produced multiple examples demonstrating this, but you won't even explain why you think Queensland should be special. Your notion that the Governor will have to wait until the caucus votes for him a second time is speculation at best. He has already been elected to lead the party. -Rrius (talk) 02:57, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

EVERY reliable source is using images of Campbell Newman and Anna Bligh in their election sections. Wikipedia is quite literally the only place anywhere which is giving Seeney the light of day (Original Research?). Newman is the party leader and will lead the party into the election as the alternate Premier. Seeney is irrelevant. There's plenty of precedence for this in overseas election pages. What we've done on Australian election pages in the past is frankly irrelevant as this is a new situation for Australian politics. We've got to be flexible. The common sense approach is clearly to use Newman's image. (WP:COMMON) 58.106.74.26 (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

IP makes a good point. I would also ask again why the editors who favour the status quo insist on listing the Leader of the Opposition, the parliamentary leader, rather than the man the caucus chose to lead the party in the election. If this were an article about the current parliamentary session, the answer would be clear. It is not. This is an article about the election. The LNP treats Newman as the LNP leader as regards the next election. The Qld ALP treats Newman as the LNP leader as regards the next election. The news media treat Newman as the LNP leader as regards the next election. Why does Wikipedia so prominently show Seeney as the leader as regards the election? Why have editors failed to address the point that the Governor would be in the same position if the ALP win, but Bligh loses her seat as they would be if the LNP win, but Campbell Newman loses? Timeshift9 said it would somehow be speculation to call Newman the election leader even though the LNP have done just that. What's more, Timeshift9 argues that if Newman wins there's some miniscule uncertainty about his becoming premier even if he wins the election and his seat, he shouldn't be in the infobox. What that ignores is that is even more speculative to assume that Seeney would become premier. It is pure speculation to even assume he wants the job. He was elected parliamentary leader only after Newman was elected overall leader. He could just as easily be a catspaw who would step aside in those circumstances.

The one thing that isn't speculation is that Newman was was elected by his party to lead it into the election, disregarding the paramountness of the parliamentary leadership. In fact, Bligh called what they did unprecedented. To follow what has always been in a situation that is clearly a break with the past is unreasonable in the extreme. The LNP, and everyone else, say Newman is their leader in the election. It is nonsensical for us to say differently. -Rrius (talk) 05:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Newman is not even a member of parliament. There is no guarantee he will be after the election. If Sweeney is so irrelevant, why doesn't the party sack him and slip Newman into his seat? The party has created an unusual situation. There is no precedent. To say it's obvious is obviously a POV position. HiLo48 (talk) 06:14, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Everyone is still missing the point. Yes, Newman is leading the LNP in the election campaign, nobody disagrees. We have the body of text in this article, and other articles like Newmans', available to refer to him as such. What needs to be clearly understood is that the infobox on next election pages contain the currently serving premier and her majesty's loyal opposition, not a potential future Premier who is currently unelected. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. When the LNP and Newman win as I assume they will, this page will still contain Bligh and Seeney. The next page after that, will not. Timeshift (talk) 06:20, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No one is missing your point. We just don't all agree with it. Where do you get the idea that the next election page always contains the serving premier and leader of the opposition? Lets take Canada for example. Right now, there is an election for leader of the New Democratic Party in progress. That party's leader in the House of Commons is Leader of the Opposition. If Brian Topp wins the leadership, he will, at least for a time, be Leader of the NDP, but not Leader of the Opposition. During such a period, the Topp would, none the less, be listed at 42nd Canadian federal election as the NDP's leader. The reason is that, contrary to what you said, the infobox is meant to list the people leading their parties in the election, not the people holding parliamentary or statutory offices. -Rrius (talk) 06:58, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is no guarantee Seeney or Bligh will win their seats either, so that point is meaningless. If Newman loses the seat, the infobox would say "lost Ashgrove", just as Bligh's spot would say "lost South Brisbane". Just imagine the nonsense of your preferred infobox if Newman and the LNP win. You would have Bligh and Seeney listed as the party leaders, but Bligh listed as "Incumbent Premier" and Newman as "Resulting Premier". If Seeney happens to have lost his seat in that scenario, it would give the impression that he only failed to become Premier for that reason. It's rubbish. The infobox is supposed to answer questions about who is contesting the election. What are the parties? Who is leading the party at the election? Which of these people is currently leading in preferred premier polling? As it stands, the infobox communicates that Seeney is leading the LNP into the election and therefore seeking premiership. It also creates the impression that Seeney is leading Bligh in PP polling. You can say that notes and the prose counter those deceptions, but that doesn't matter. It isn't okay for the infobox to be misleading as long as the truth is somewhere else.

As for obviousness, the LNP have told us exactly who their election leader is, so it shouldn't be hard for us to see that leader for the purposes of the 2012 election is Newman. Just to make that even plainer, the media and the other parties do exactly the same. Trying to associate Seeney with the election leadership of the party, as we are doing by listing him in the infobox, is worse than OR or POV. It is nonsense. The election is the exact context in which the LNP have made clear Seeney is not their leader, yet we continue to treat him as such. That makes no sense whatsoever. The essential problem seems to be that two or three editors are unable to see that what the LNP have done is not unique at all, but is exactly what has been done in other jurisdictions. In those jurisdictions, the leader-outside-parliament is listed in the election article's infobox with "running in [seat]" even though some other person serves as "Caucus leader", "Party leader", "Leader of the Opposition", or whatever the case may be until the leader-outside-parliament comes inside. There is no rational basis for using the parliamentary leader for an election article when it is clear that someone else is the party leader in the context of the election and a method for dealing with the situation has already been provided. Finally, as for Seeney being irrelevant, that is your word, not mine. His leadership is limited, but that doesn't mean Newman doesn't want him on his team. What's more, no one can force Seeney or any other member to give up his seat, so if that's what you mean by "sack him", then the answer is that it is impossible. My point is that it is pure speculation to suggest Seeney would step into the role of Premier if the LNP won but Newman lost (or even stay on as Leader of the Opposition if the LNP and Newman both lost). Seeney's election as caucus leader happened just after Newman's as party leader, so it is clear the intention was for it to be a temporary stint. So yes, it is pure speculation to say he certainly would want to stay on permanently.

You two (or three) don't think Newman belongs in the infobox. I think that is wrong and irrational, but then you think listing the election leader as the election leader is wrong and irrational. Whatever. What really doesn't make any sense is that, while you see this is not the normal Australian circumstance, you have been completely unwilling to contemplate any compromise. More than one editor has proposed putting both LNP leaders in the infobox. Other parties with co-leaders have that all time. See the last few New Zealand elections, for example. Another perfectly reasonable solution would be to list no one as leader and have, where the leader's name would go, the words "See below" linked to the prose section on the LNP leadership. Since I seriously doubt you are suddenly going to be convinced by the same arguments you have either disagreed with or ignored in the past, would you at least explain why we should not fix the deceptiveness of the infobox through either putting in both or neither? -Rrius (talk) 06:52, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Seeney is the current parliamentary leader of the LNP. Trumped in my opinion. Timeshift (talk) 07:11, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

1. There is no formal title of "Election Leader" in Australian politics. The party just made it up.

2. I did not call Seeney "Irrelevant". Someone on your side did.

3. If Newman fails to win a seat, his Infobox will NOT say "lost Ashgrove". He canot lose a seat he has never held.

4. If the party cannot get rid of Seeney, what's really going on? He obviously still thinks he's in charge.

Overall, your arguments are sloppy and unconvincing. Wikipedia is not here to do the bidding of a party, like the Murdoch press perhaps. HiLo48 (talk) 07:15, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

No they aren't. Your understanding of the Westminster system is severely limited by the fact that you seem unwilling to take account of what happens elsewhere. I never said there was a formal title of "Election Leader", and I didn't put it in capital letters, so this is just a straw man you built up. The fact remains, despite your problems, that the LNP chose Campbell Newman to lead it into the election. The LNP, Labor, and the media all see it that way; you and Timeshift are the only ones who refuse to recognise it. As for Seeney's irrelevance, you responded to me, not some other person agreeing with me, by saying "if Sweeney [sic] is so irrelevant". Since I didn't say it, I responded to that effect. Perhaps it wouldn't say "lost Ashgrove", but it would say something to that effect. See the infobox for Canadian federal election, 2008. Specifically, the Greens' leader is listed as "Ran in Central Nova (lost)". So the argument was not sloppy; I just used a slightly incorrect formulation. Your final argument makes no sense at all. Who said the party can't get rid of Seeney? I sure as hell didn't. What I said is that it is highly speculative to suggest that he would become Premier if the LNP win, but Newman loses. You don't like the arguments because you don't agree with them, but there is nothing sloppy about them. Instead of setting up straw men and responding to arguments that were never made, we would all be better off if you actually addressed what is really said. Then again, that might not do much since you just seem to be stuck in a perspective that sees the parliamentary leader of a party as the be all end all despite the fact that the LNP has clearly aligned itself with political parties in other jurisdictions in electing a leader outside parliament. -Rrius (talk) 01:08, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

I think some people are placing too much emphasis on the role of parliamentary leader. The Newman situation is not completely unprecedented in Australia but the last time it happened doesn't yet have an article. The basic problem is that up to now the "leader of the party", "candidate for Premier" and "parliamentary leader" in each article are always the same person so trying to claim that the precedents are to use one and not the other doesn't convince - is there any discussion of this from before Newman became (whatever)?

If Newman doesn't win his own seat it will not be the first article where this happens - last year in the Newfoundland and Labrador general election, 2011 the Liberals there were led into the election by a non MHA who failed in his bid to win a seat. The box for that election lists him and as seat says "ran in St. George's-Stephenville East (lost)". There are many other such election articles - for one closer to Queensland try New Zealand general election, 2011 where ACT was led by a non-MP who stood on the top-up list but the party failed to win any list seats. So I don't think the possibility of Newman not winning his own seat is a problem for the infobox in the slightest.

Ultimately this dispute arises because what previously seemed to be a hair in Australian politics has now been split, though as pointed out several times internationally it is far from a unique situation. The opinions against seem to be based on the assumption that the post of parliamentary leader is sacrosanct and that is all that matters. I have not seen anything explaining why that is beyond rather pedantic arguments about the Westminster system, when in practice leaders do run as potential premiers, or the view that somehow it is doing the LNP's bidding to list their leader as leader. It is no more doing the LNP's bidding if we list Newman than it's doing the ALP's bidding to list Bligh.

Is the opposition really just ultimately based on a dislike of a party having a leader (by whatever title and formal post) outside the parliament? If so that's just don't like it territory and should not be a determining factor. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:22, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

I happen to see it in the opposite direction. If the QLD conservatives want to create a fourth Coalition party, the LNP, and want to have two leaders, that is fine, but to reject the inevitable consequences, seems to me a case of WP:IDLI. Australians do not directly elect heads of government - there is only one LNP leader that the QLD parliament recognises, and that is currently Seeney. Newman has no seat. He cannot be the current leader if he isn't in parliament. Sure, he can be the self-declared defacto LNP leader, but this is not an official parliamentary label, it is an ad-hoc party label which the LNP appears to have used for expediency. Parliament overrides what political parties claim. Let's look at it from another perspective example - if an LNP MP resigned to create a by-election which Newman was to contest with the intent of becoming the parliamentary LNP leader upon election, would we change this article's infobox to Newman before his election? No, we would wait until the parliament officially recognises him as his party's leader. There is only ever one MP from each side that parliament recognises as party leader, there cannot be two, it is technically impossible. The LNP went for expediency, but that doesn't mean we can then proceed to throw westminster democracy out the window. Parliament is king, and Seeney is the one and only current LNP leader of it. Timeshift (talk) 02:45, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

Somebody better tell Antony Green that even he has an image of the wrong guy! http://www.abc.net.au/elections/qld/2012/guide/preview.htm 175.39.10.1 (talk) 10:30, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

The parliament recognises the leader of the parliamentary party. Again what was a hair is now split. Any political party can choose whoever it likes as its leader and present whomever it wishes as its potential premier - under the Westminster system premiers may not be directly elected but the practical reality is a party fights an election as a prospective government with their leader as the prospective premier. Given the precedents for this situation are the other way and the sources are referring to Newman not Seeney as leader it is perverse to stateotherwise. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:16, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree that the infobox should contain Campbell Newman. This is a page about the election, not the parliament that preceded it. Campbell Newman is the Leader of the LNP and will lead the LNP into this election as the LNP's alternate premier. I think the infobox should contain the actual Leader of a party who is essentially acting as de facto Opposition Leader, which is not necessarily its parliamentary leader. This is the conclusion other wikipedians have reached on countless other pages where the same situation prevails (some in Westminster nations too). As also noted, all reliable sources without exception use Newman as the leader. I find this quite clear cut. Jmount (talk) 14:39, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

KAP meta colour

w00t! Fixed the KAP color bar under Aidan's name. So proud of myself! *self pat on back* Dengero (talk) 14:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thuringowa

Watch out for a possible edit war on this on. The first pref results so far suggest that the Labor incumbent fell to third place with the final two LNP and KAP. This may change with pre polls and postals. However the QEC (& ABC) are using the LNP and Labor candidates for the 2PP, probably a pre-poll choice, and so all the automatic systems are reporting the LNP have gained it. [5] [6] Although Labor have certainly lost the seat it's probably best to hold back on listing a clear gain for anyone until further counting has made things clearer. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The count seems annoyingly slow here, but it's true that listing it as a clear gain is probably a bit of a stretch. Maryborough looks pretty close too; Foley may yet hang on. Frickeg (talk) 00:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

This post by Antony Green states that the 2PP figure is just a notional count done on the night for public information (there won't be full final 2PPs either it seems) and involves pre-selected candidates. We won't know the result here for a while yet - in particular there's nothing to indicate if the KAP will do as well with the pre polls & postals. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Record swing?

The Age is claiming the largest swing in Australian political history. As far as I can tell this is a result of confusion about the difference between primary and 2PP swings. Queensland Labor suffered a 15.7% primary vote swing, which is easily bigger than the 13.3% suffered by NSW Labor last year, but still smaller than the 16.5% primary vote swing [7] suffered by the Victorian ALP in 1955. The Age has looked at this blog post from Antony Green and confused primary and 2PP swing figures. I can't find a 2PP figure for this election yet; that may still beat the 16.5% 2PP swing from NSW last year. Frickeg (talk) 02:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

2PP won't be out for a while since they haven't even finished counting the primaries yet. The KAP seemed to have pulled a lot of primary votes from Labor, but we don't know if the preferences will flow back to Labor or LNP (unlike the greens, which pretty much all flows back to ALP). Dengero (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't think there'll be an official 2PP figure at all. IIRC the QEC stopped doing them in 1998 after the rise of One Nation rendered 2PP a rather meaningless concept in those elections (and the repeated onning and offing of the Coalition can't have helped). Notional 2CPs are done on the night but that's just to allow the candidates and media a clearer idea of who's won. In the handful of seats where KAP and Independents are & were always expected to be in the last two they may never do any ALP-LNP 2PP count at all. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Dalrymple

I don't think it's right to describe the seat as changing hands at the election, since a KAP member going in retained his seat. If it went to the LNP it would count as "changing hands". The turning point is the election itself, not prior. Slac speak up! 12:05, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I tend to disagree with this. KAP cannot have won the seat last time; they didn't exist. It's why the election box has them going up two seats; this was their debut. In electoral terms, Dalrymple was a KAP gain. Frickeg (talk) 22:12, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The problem with setting the turning point at (say) 2009 is that we then can't count Beaudesert or Burnett as LNP gains, which they both clearly are, on the basis that the LNP won both seats last election. Dalrymple is a KAP hold, not a KAP gain, since the dividing line is set at 24 March 2012, not any earlier. For example, we wouldn't say the LNP gained 25 seats off the Liberal and National parties in 2009, since the party didn't exist then. Slac speak up! 22:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The LNP is clearly the successor party of the Liberal and National parties, though. KAP isn't the successor of anything except maybe the Queensland Party, who didn't exist at the last election either. Beaudesert and Burnett were both LNP holds in my book anyway; the LNP won them in 2009, and they won them in 2012. Frickeg (talk) 02:20, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it makes more sense to show a seat changing hands based on the party status of the sitting member at the time the parliament is dissolved. To compare it purely to the last election (or by-election) seems to ignore a whole load of things which can happen in between such as resignations, expulsions, defections, party registrations and de-registrations, and boundary redistribution. That's why there are fields for "last election" figures and "current figures". To gain a majority a party still needs to gain seats where a former member has defected or left when they are running a candidate against their former member. The ABC lists Beaudesert and Burnett as changing hands, and omits Dalrymple. I don't think ECQ has such a list as the AEC does, and I'm aware that the ABC/Antony Green sometimes uses a different rationale from the electoral commissions, but I think the ABC's way makes sense. --Canley (talk) 02:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The ECQ doesn't, but as you say the AEC does. The relevant seat in 2010 would have been Ryan, which is notably not listed in their list of "seats changing hands". This question comes down to whether we're talking about members holding seats or parties. Dalrymple may have been a hold for Shane Knuth, but it was a gain for KAP. Since it seems to me that we're listing party figures in the results table, it would be fair to include Dalrymple as a gain and Beaudesert and Burnett as holds. This also takes into account the way we treat redistributions: if a seat is redistributed and notionally changes party status, what then? We generally treat it as though it was held by the party it is notionally held by, not by the sitting member; I note that in that instance Antony lists them as changing seats as well, and also that in the previous list he doesn't list Ryan, so he's not always consistent. Whichever way this goes, the ones we don't end up listing should probably be listed in a note somewhere. Frickeg (talk) 21:58, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

There was previously a "before election" line that I deleted from the infobox to bring it in line with all the other elections. It's much simpler or otherwise the infobox doesn't make sense (you can't gain two seats if you had 2 to start with). And it will make the LNP sound like they have a bigger win because they started with 2 seats less than what they had last election so they would've "gained" 46 seats, which isn't what is reported by the larger media. By the way, I'm just talking about the infobox. I agree with leaving Dalrymple out in the "seats changing hands" bit. Dengero (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Return date

A quick note on this edit. The date set for return is a deadline under section 132 of the Electoral Act 1992.[8] For example, in 2009 the date set for return was 20 April 2009,[9] but the writ was returned on 7 April, as noted in the source at Queensland state election, 2009#Key dates. -Rrius (talk) 23:37, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

warrego

Just like to point out that this list does not include the seat of Warrego. I'd put it in but i dunno how and i'm too lazy to find out. If anyone cares, Howard Hobbs kept his seat and his wiki page needs updating too. I don't know how to sign in wiggly lines sorry. That doesn't seem to be on my keyboard. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.111.125 (talk) 13:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Wait never mind. I just realised that the list is only seats changing hands. My bad. But still, someone should update his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.186.111.125 (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Great work!

Congratulations all on a detailed and well-written article. Slac speak up! 00:31, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#RfC addressing the inclusion of minor parties in Australian election article infoboxes

A RfC has been started at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#RfC addressing the inclusion of minor parties in Australian election article infoboxes which may affect the infobox of this article. ColonialGrid (talk) 11:20, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Queensland state election, 2012. 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:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20120317154331/http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/elections/state/state2009/timetable.html to http://www.ecq.qld.gov.au/elections/state/state2009/timetable.html
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.bookshop.qld.gov.au/documents/27.04.12Combined.pdf

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After 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 {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• 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) 22:33, 20 July 2016 (UTC)