Talk:September 2015 Liberal Party of Australia leadership spill

Seven years

Malcolm Turnbull ousted Brendan Nelson on September 16 2008 and he ousted Tony Abbott on September 15 2015.

As one can see it is one day shy of seven years apart between these two spills in which Turnbull rolled a sitting leader.

This fact should be noted in the article. 122.108.156.100 (talk) 12:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

2008 spill: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Australia_leadership_spill,_2008

"A spill of the leadership of the Liberal Party of Australia took place on 15 September 2008. At a ballot on 16 September, Shadow Treasurer Malcolm Turnbull defeated the incumbent leader Brendan Nelson."

122.108.156.100 (talk) 12:28, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

As I said on your talk page, you still have not provided an source as required by the page I linked on your talk page (WP:Verifiability), Wikipedia reports which is in reliable independent sources, if they are aren't saying it, then we cannot. The bit you added is also inappropriate in the lead section as it does not summaries the the content of the article. Also the use of the word "ousted" is not neutral so should not be included. Additionally, the point you are making is not appropriate to this article which is about the leadership spill between Turnbull and Abbott, not about Turnbull (that is, it should be in Malcolm Turnbull not this article). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:31, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I also can't see how six years and 363 days (or one day less than seven years) is significant anyway. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:35, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

You do not need a source to prove 2 and 2 equals four and I don't think you have any understanding of Australian politics and I was merely pointed out the timing of this event even it is just mere coincidence.122.108.156.100 (talk) 12:39, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

No you don't need a source to show that 2+2=4 but that's not what you're doing. But putting a comment like that in the article (especially without a source and in the lead) gives it significant weight which is even more of a problem when using a word like "ousted". Wikipedia reports what sources are saying, if sources aren't saying this then we cannot say it, that's a core pillar of Wikipedia a quote from WP:Verifiability "the threshold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth". So yes it is an interesting point to make but it needs to be sourced and is probably better in Turnbull's article than in this article (which about the spill, not Turnbull). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:49, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

I've moved the sentence to the vote section where it seems more appropriate (given the lead is for the most important bits of information) and reworded it slightly to make it sound more encyclopedic, hopefully it still sounds alright? If not can we please discuss it, I'm trying to find a media source from the past 24 hours or so which makes the point. Regards, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:30, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

To StAnselm: "If StAnselm had waited a few more seconds my correction from one to two days would have been processed and he should not made that correction himself instead of deleting the whole thing"

I meant to say that he should have made that correction himself instead of deleting the whole thing.122.108.156.100 (talk) 22:34, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Pinging StAnselm so they see this. 122.108.156.100: is there a reason you are so intent on having it in the lead rather than discuss the issue and try to compromise (as I tried to do by moving it into the vote section with a related bit of information). Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 22:40, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Who votes?

Under rules can it be clarified whether or not other coalition members get to vote and which ones? 99 votes is greater than the number of straight Liberal MPs and Senators so it seems likely like at least some other MPs and Senators participated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.212.66.124 (talk) 16:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

This is perhaps better suited for the general article, Leadership spill, but it is something I would very much like to know myself. Canada doesn't have process quite like this - so far as I know, a leader cannot be explicitly forced into such an election, though some parties run periodic "leadership reviews", and if the support gets low enough, a leader may voluntarily step aside. But when a leader does resign (for any reason), all members of the party vote for the replacement. So it is bizarre to me to see the leadership of a nation decided by about 100 votes; the closest comparable I can think of in Canada involved over 23,000 votes. Resolute 17:03, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

We vote for the party and they vote for who will lead them, the leadership of the nation is already decided, its just who is going to lead them. 140.159.2.241 (talk) 07:51, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Or Australians vote for a local member (of a party or independent) is probably a better way of saying party. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 14:05, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

If you're asking why there were apparently more votes than parliamentary Liberal Party members, it's because 20 Liberal National Party (Queensland LNP) and 2 Country Liberal members sit in the Liberal party room. So the full party room is 103 MPs—take away the candidates (Abbott and Turnbull), and Dean Smith and Michael Ronaldson in transit—and that's 99. Ronaldson turned up in time for the deputy leader ballot. --Canley (talk) 14:20, 15 September 2015 (UTC)

Only one of the CLP members sits in the Liberal parliamentary party - the other sits in the Nationals where he's their Senate leader & ex deputy leader. This sort of confusion suggests we may need to look again at how to handle situations like the LNP & CLP - federally they are all Liberals, whatever label they use back home, and not including them in totals is misleading. It's also not consistent with articles on earlier years when other MPs & Senators had different arrangements at state & federal level. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, you're right, the Liberal party room is 102 MPs—I had forgotten about Scullion sitting with the Nationals. --Canley (talk) 00:31, 25 September 2015 (UTC)