Talk:Liberal Party of Australia

Update for info box

Im updating all info boxes for the political parties represented in the Australian House of Representatives. Does anyone object to replacing the current info box with the one presented below? GJGardner (talk) 09:25, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Liberal Party of Australia
150px
Leader	Tony Abbott MP
President	Alan Stockdale
Deputy Leader	Julie Bishop MP
Founded	1944
Headquarters	Cnr Blackall & Macquarie St Barton ACT 2600
Ideology	Conservative liberalism, Liberal conservatism, New Right
Political position	Centre-right
International affiliation	International Democrat Union
Colours	Blue
House of Representatives	54 / 150
Senate	32 / 76
Website
http://www.liberal.org.au/
Politics of Australia Political parties Elections

Liberal national

Do the Liberals and Nationals ever compete with each other in elections? If not, in what sense can they be two parties? BillMasen (talk) 14:37, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Organisationally the two are legally separate entities and they have distinct parliamentary parties. They do compete in a number of seats, both "open" seats (usually rural) where the sitting MP is retiring and both parties try to succeed. See for instance the Gippsland by-election, 2008 when both parties contested a National vacancy. Also they compete in states where the Coalition doesn't operate - the situation with the conservative parties in South Australia and Western Australia are both different from the eastern states and results in competing candidates in a number of House seats and separate tickets in the Senate - for instance they've stood in O'Connor in almost every election since 1980 despite the same Liberal MP holding the seat for all that time. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:40, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Lower house seats held - not 72

Surely we cannot be putting seats held in the infobox as 72 for the Liberal Party of Australia... the coalition has 72, the Liberal Party does not. Timeshift (talk) 00:47, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

The LNP is the Queensland division of the Liberal Party, so how come their 21 seats aren't added in —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.178.160 (talk) 07:16, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

I've already made this request that the Liberal National Party of Queensland article infobox be fixed up to have 22 seats but nobody seems to have taken notice. It would be good if someone can fix the LNP infobox up. Timeshift (talk) 07:18, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

"THE THINGS THAT MATTER"

This is a party that Matter in regards to it legendary history. --(Keating 1991 (talk) 04:03, 31 October 2010 (UTC)Keating 1991)

Expansion

After working through a few Australian history articles, I kept referring back to this one, but found it didn't cover much content - so I've expanded. Please review/edit/expand as appropriate.Ozhistory (talk) 18:04, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Not '44' seats

The infobox on the main page is listed as the Liberal Party only having 44 members in the House of Reps. This is incorrect. The LNP is the Queensland division of the Liberal Party. Why are there 22 members not listed here?144.136.101.238 (talk) 11:49, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

State Houses infobox

RE: "9 October 2011‎ Timeshift9 Undid revision 454622330 by AlexanderFrancis disagree with questionable addition to infobox, please form consensus on talk" Timeshift9, the responsibility actually falls to you to form consensus against my change, IAW WP:consensus "In most cases, the first thing to try is an edit to the article" As nothing had been mentioned in talk against such a move I decided to make the change. While I am willing to accept the possibility that I made a small error in the calculations I do not believe that the edit is in itself a "questionable addition" after all the Liberal Party is represented in the states not just federally. As it would apear that there is absence of regular discussion on this page it will probably end up being a discusion between the two of us. As such, what are your issues with my addition?AlexanderFrancis (talk) 02:33, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It was this edit by AlexanderFrancis that added two items to the infobox: "State Upper Houses" and "State Lower Houses" (with the total numbers of seats held in all states). The normal procedure for a disagreement like this is for those supporting the change to explain why it is useful. One minor issue is that the information is not readily verifiable (I think), although it's just a calculation from verifiable data so is not technically WP:OR. The minor problem concerns editors needing to keep the data up to date while dealing with edits which change the values (what happens if someone changes "54/155" to "55/155"?). Perhaps this should be discussed at a suitable wikiproject? BTW the editor reverting new information does not have the responsibility for gaining consensus; it is the reverse. See WP:BRD. Also, the section heading should be something neutral like "State houses in infobox". Johnuniq (talk) 02:54, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Ok I take the point regarding BRD and the heading, i've changed it. I believe the information is readily verifiable, I didn't research it I just added a couple of numbers together, I could reference the home page of every Parliament in Australia. The reason I added this was I noticed it is in the Pages of the American Political Parties and I wanted to know how the Australian Parties matched up. Surely the problem regarding edits is one common to pretty much every WP page?AlexanderFrancis (talk) 03:12, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Yes, if adding that info is an established practice (and not just a recent addition), an argument for inclusion here would be supportable (although what happens on this page is not dependent on other articles). I have not looked, but what about other parties in Australia? It may be helpful to approach one or both of WT:WikiProject Political parties and WT:WikiProject Australia. Johnuniq (talk) 03:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

It's because it's irrelevant. Who cares how many state seats a party holds nationwide? It has no meaning. We have a federal tally in the infobox, and state totals later on in the article. It serves no purpose. Timeshift (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, the significance of a political party's state seats is as important if not more than their federal seats, sovereignty is vested in the states equally. The infoboxes provide an easy to read summary of the organisation, and the number of seats in state legislatures is important information which directly relates to the influence of the party. As mentioned above, my rational for making the change was because it was information I wanted to know from Wikipedia and which was not available. AlexanderFrancis (talk) 04:42, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I have to agree with Timeshift on this one. I have never seen the total number of state seats referred to as a significant number - in fact I've never seen it referred to at all. The information on individual state seats is actually already on the page - further down they're set out in a nice table. Of course it's fair enough that you wanted to know the information, but it's pretty simple to just add the numbers together yourself; you will need to provide evidence that the total state seat number is regarded as relevant somewhere else as well though. Frickeg (talk) 04:52, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

We have one later on in the article for state seats. But to combine them in to one for a secondary bar graph in the infobox is pointless, it has no relevancy or meaning or implications. Timeshift (talk) 04:53, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with Frickeg and Timeshift here - the federal seats are more important at a first glance. If you look at how other countries do this, Germany has this, UK has this, Canada has this and South Africa has this. Note the latter two don't even mention state/regional MPs. Orderinchaos 06:38, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Classical liberalism

An editor (Timeshift) has suggested a consensus discussion on inclusion of the term Classical Liberalism in the party ideology description in the infobox. He/she says "classical liberalism" is "not accurate". Lately I've been doing some work on the history of Aus political parties on wikipedia, and I find that the term is often used by Liberals to describe their philosophy. Some samples:

• The Party's own website has an outline of beliefs beginning as follows: "We believe in the inalienable rights and freedoms of all peoples; and we work towards a lean government that minimises interference in our daily lives; and maximises individual and private sector initiative" which sounds very like the definition of classical liberalism on wikipedia.
• Robert Menzies, the philosophical godfather and founder of the party often used the language of classical liberalism and quoted John Stuart Mill's "On Liberty" in his The Forgotten People speeches as follows: "“(T)he sole end for which mankind are warranted, individually or collectively, in interfering with the liberty of action of any of their number is self-protection. … (T)he only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilized community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others.” It's all very classically liberal and according to Senator George Brandis, Menzies described this as “a pregnant truth … a good rule, not only of common law but of social morality.”
• The Barry O'Farrell wikipedia article for instance, has him identify himself (along with party founder Robert Menzies) as a "classical liberal". Former Federal leaders like John Gorton, Malcolm Fraser and Malcolm Turnbull would all presumably identify as classical liberals (in the context of their times) and George Brandis traces Liberal origins to the liberal Alfred Deakin.
• John Howard, who once described himself I think as the most conservative leader the party had had, also looked to a classical liberal component at the heart of the Party: "Menzies knew the importance for Australian Liberalism to draw upon both the classical liberal as well as the conservative political traditions. ... He believed in a liberal political tradition that encompassed both Edmund Burke and John Stuart Mill – a tradition which I have described in contemporary terms as the broad church of Australian Liberalism"

That all says to me that "classical liberalism" can and should be included in the infobox as a party ideology. Ozhistory (talk) 11:13, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

There's little doubt that Menzies' original intentions were for the party to embody classical liberalism, but I'm sure that many commentators would argue that it has moved a long way from that position. We must also remember that what politicians say for the public record is more marketing than reality at times, so what modern politicians say about themselves is never a good source. What we need to find how quality, reliable, independent sources describe the party today. HiLo48 (talk) 14:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Charles Kingston was a classical liberal. The Liberal Party of Australia is not. There is more of an argument to be made for Menzies seeing as he was a Keynesian and ran a budget deficit every year of his Prime Ministership, but classical liberalism is far more than this... infact, these two traits in some ways is a further argument against classical liberalism, depending on your perspective of it. Timeshift (talk) 05:07, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Classical liberalism is a form of libertarianism that has not existed since the 18th century. The closest you will see today is Texas Congressman Ron Paul. The liberal party is NOT classical liberal. — Preceding unsigned Saruman-the-white (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Correct, the party is not classical liberal. Timeshift (talk) 05:01, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

No, Timeshift9, you are wrong. Classical liberalism is not a "form of libertarianism". Libertarianism prescribes states no definite role, while classical liberalism emphasises government's role in maintaining law and order. Menzies having Keynesian economic policies speaks nothing of his ideology as well, Keynesianism's emergence and Menzies term coincided following the Depression. It is no surprise his party at the time experimented against ideology. Saying Ron Paul is close classical liberal is also wrong and shows misunderstanding ideology. Ron Paul is libertarian because he he holds, and speaks, against the government. Again, he affirms government no prescribed role. Classical liberal thinks such as Smith though affirm government has roles maintains law and order and tradition. Saying classical liberalism has not existed since the 18th century is not correct either. Sometimes people say modern classical liberals are "neoclassical liberals", but the ideology is still nonetheless. The political theory continues influencing economics too, neoclassical economics is the standard analysis taught even. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.255.209 (talk) 11:16, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Latest edits

There is way too much POV in the way the text is written, and assumes to compare to social liberalism. It's too broad-a brush. Timeshift (talk) 04:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I would thank timeshift9 to stop displaying ownership tendencies in reverting the minor tidyup and fleshing out of the intro when i have already reverted the sidebar ideological categorisers at his last suggestion. If he believes something is POV, kindly tell me precisely what is "way too POV" rather than attempting to revert my whole edit, as an edit to tidy language and flesh out intro such as that does NOT require consensus. If you have any specific claim that you think is POV (although i am quite sure the entire intro consists only of facts), kindly edit that specific claim or tell your specific objection rather than wholesale reverting everything because of some objection you personally hold. The term social liberalism was only used to explain australian usage of the term "Liberalism" (not the capital L) as opposed to its usage in the US and UK, where it refers to social liberalism (ie Democratic party, Liberal Democrats, etc). As this is an important point which naturally will result in confusion for overseas readers, naturally if you think there is a better way to describe the term's usage (maybe see the article on aust liberalism?) you could change that part specifically to a different way, if you favour some term such as "modern liberalism", etc. instead. Saruman-the-white (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, timeshift9 needs banning from reverting edits because he continually reverts to an incorrect ideology position. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.255.209 (talk) 11:18, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Seeking consensus - ideology

The ideological description in the right hand column is clearly not suitable.

Liberal conservatism and conservative liberalism are european terms that do not describe the Liberal party, have never been acknowledged by party documents, and seem to have been chosen solely on the basis of the party's name. Whatsmore it is not consistent with other similar articles like the US republicans or democrats which use "American conservatism" and "American liberalism".

It seems bizarre that we are not using the already very long article about the ideology of the liberal party specifically, Australian Liberalism - this would also be more consistent with the usage discussed above by the GOP, dems, etc. Also Australian conservatism should be used as it refers to conservatism as it is in Australia - very different to conservatism in European countries, for example. It strikes me as very odd that such vague unfitting terms should be used when we have these two terms which are consistent, have their own articles, largely or completely discuss these ideologies in relation to the Liberal Party, and refer to these ideologies of the centre right in Australia (for which the liberal party is the main vehicle) rather than overseas.

I am hereby seeking speedy consensus to rectify this and use the obvious, precise, and consistent terminology Australian Liberalism and Australian conservatism in the right hand sidebar/table. For the reasons mentioned above as well as their complete out-of-nowhere arbitraryness, the current descriptors should not stay for very long as they are inadequate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saruman-the-white (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm happy with everything you've added in the article except for the minor bits i've changed. But I still think con lib/lib con is best, but others can have their say too. One thing that I don't like about this article is the level of detail about all their government. It shouldn't be so expansive. There's PM and PM government articles for that. The ALP article is far more concise. And is far more detailed on the structure of their party than this article is. Timeshift (talk) 05:32, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm sorry if my irritation was a bit excessive before. I reacted in an annoyed way because it had taken me a while to write the stuff that was reverted wholesale rather than specifically. Thank you for not doing that again. Indeed, if you believe those are the best descriptors that is a perfectly legitimate point of view also, and we'll have to wait for some more people to see which way they think is most fitting. Thanks for that. Saruman-the-white (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the ideology information is wrong. timeshift9, you need to provide some citation to backup your "liberal conservatism" and "conservative liberalism" claims here. You have a history of disagreeing here and you also go against what Howard has said. Please provide a verifiable good quality reference if you want to maintain your edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.217.255.209 (talk) 11:22, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

That's not how it works. Your changes are disputed, therefore the status quo must remain until you gain consensus. Timeshift (talk) 01:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This is quite a challenging problem. It would be nice if the party would tell us, but it doesn't. I've thoroughly checked its website and constitution. All I've found is a lot of use of the word Liberal, and some use of liberal, but no attempt is made to define either. Conservative is thrown around in a similar way. I guess that means we use secondary sources, but which ones? HiLo48 (talk) 10:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah... it is vague. The ALP and Greens have stronger ideologies because of different origins. The ALP is obviously socialist and the Greens follows "green politics". Menzies founded the UAP and "Liberal" Party in opposition to the ALP. He did not found them on ideological grounds. Roughly speaking, you could say the modern Liberal Party followed the Protectionists and Free Traders' fusion, but that is hardly relevant to its ideology nowadays either. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.135.147.44 (talk) 02:11, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Interesting POV. Timeshift (talk) 07:10, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I have an interest in political science and would refer to the Conservative Party (UK) article. The ideology of the party is described as 'conservatism' and 'economic liberalism'. The Conservatives are a much more progressive than the Liberal Party of Australia. The party officially supports gay marriage and action on climate change (including the European Union carbon price). In the United Kingdom general election, 2010 the party addressed several 'green issues'. From the Party wiki article with a source:'These included proposals designed to impose a tax on workplace car parking spaces, a halt to airport growth, a tax on gas-guzzling 4x4s and restrictions on car advertising'. I think a good way to describe the Libs' ideology would be: 'Social conservatism', 'Australian conservatism' and 'Economic liberalism' (although the party has become increasingly protectionist. As for political postion, I would probably lean towards 'Centre-right' (like UK Conservatives) or 'Right-wing' Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

WP:SOCKPUPPET. Timeshift (talk) 08:43, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

??? What Welshboyau11 (talk) 08:45, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Just an IP getting an account, which he's entirely entitled to do. Frickeg (talk) 10:07, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not a sock puppet of anyone. Welshboyau11 (talk) 10:48, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

This account suddenly tag teams this account, and where the former's activity starts, the latter's activity stops. I've been around the wikipedia block too many times to be fooled. Timeshift (talk) 23:29, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Please ignore timeshifts comments and read my comments re ideology. Timeshift is sadly unwell and has it in for me. Welshboyau11 (talk) 02:43, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Too much duplication

Why do we have what seems to be Menzies and Howard government and PM articles as entire sections in this article? It seems way too expansive, far more than the ALP article, and not enough about the structure. Thoughts? Timeshift (talk) 05:43, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

On one hand, wikipedia is not limited, so length is not necessarily bad, especially given that articles on foreign parties such as UK con/lab, US rep/dem are significantly longer, and the ALP does have sections on "significant governments" - one for whitlam, one for keating, etc., which is similar. On the other, duplication is of course a very much a bother and a hindrance to whoever has to read it. I agree that the Menzies era and the howard era should indeed have their own subsections under history (as the menzies era was the party's founding era, and went on for 20 years, and the howard era went on for not too much shorter counting opposition and was very significant both for australia and for the liberal party. i would not be opposed to sections based on larger time periods as with the ALP article however - for example, one for menzies, one for post menzies (late 60s through fraser), one for howard and abbott (these could be in one section as they do not warrant two distinct periods and there has not been time for significant changes in this amount of time). Saruman-the-white (talk) 06:06, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Street-level detail of governments belong in the articles of the PM as well as the PM government articles. I think this article could learn from the recent changes to the ALP article. Readers don't want this page for a day to day diary of the PM, they want to know where the party came from, what it stands for, what it's done, and party structure. I think the ALP article does these four things rather well. I think this article does only the first two right, and strays way too far in to irrelevance. Timeshift (talk) 06:16, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Structurally, the Lib page is superior to the ALP page because the Lib page provides precis of the significant periods in Lib history, in which reforms and general political maneuverings are able to be broadly discussed. In contrast, the ALP page has been recently re-constructed by Timeshift with some useful historical info, but a structural weakness, which allows for only a brief historical overview, followed by an extended section which he wants to include only "labor reforms". The consensus on the talk page there seems to be that this will allow partisan editors to simply weed out any broad, less flattering discussion of labor history and present misleadingly glowing detail on only certain Labor leaders' in relation to their records on reform. Leaders like Whitlam benefit inordinately from such a structure, because Timeshift can rule out the breathtaking economic mis-management and ministerial scandals as "irrelevant" to the reform section and "too detailed" for the historical overview, thus presenting an entirely misleading portrait of the Whitlam Government and Labor history. The separation into historical overview and "reform" is unnecessary and the ALP article should be brought more into line with the Lib structure: a simple, chronological historical precis of significant periods in the party's history which combines a) some general historical context, b) evolution of party philosophy c) notes significant legislation, d) discusses political machinations such as leadership rivalry (like Gorton Fraser/Fraser Howard Peacock etc) d) remains brief. Observoz (talk) 23:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, having one section on history then another section on notable PMs straight after seems more like duplication than anything to me, and an unnecessary complication. Saruman-the-white (talk) 23:59, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the Liberals are historically and currently more economically scandalous than Labor, but that's all opinion, it is not measurable. Acts are. These articles are not for historical scandals, they do not last. They belong in the articles of the PMs and their government articles, here is too much. Things that parties passed, they last, and they should be included. And we should all remember that reform doesnt necessarily = good. Take any example from the ALP page - some people will support any chosen reform, some people will not. To say it is a glowing endorsement of the ALP says a lot IMHO. The comments made almost seem like an admission that the Libs haven't done much. Timeshift (talk) 06:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Because an Act "passes" doesn't mean it "lasts". What a weird thing to write.Observoz (talk) 23:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Furthermore, "scandals" as you term them can deeply significant in political history. Whitlam's approach to economics continues to shape a whole generation of Australians in their views towards Labor and the fact that Whitlam had to sack his own treasurer and deputy prime minister is actually quite unusual. Your text for example, notes another unusual point: it rightly notes as an historical aside that Whitlam was the only PM to be sacked by a GG. Why do you make that comment? It's not an Act, is it? It's HISTORICAL CONTEXT. Your arguments do not bear scrutiny.Observoz (talk) 23:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

First point - no, but unlike scandals, it tends to be the rule rather than the exception. There's scant an Act which is reversed wholesale. Second point - Whitlam was sacked, this means he was no longer the PM. This is not a scandal, it's a fact. It's as relevant as the election wins or anything else. Timeshift (talk) 06:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Timeshift, as a lawyer I can tell you that many, many Acts passed by former governments have their substantive effect neutered or amended away. It does not take much. Using numnber of Acts passed is not a useful measure, especially considering the highly negligable or trivial effects that an Act (the vast majority) have compared to some other Acts. There is a reason that you wont see mentions of how many acts passed under a PM or president or efforts to translate this into how "reformist" (meaningless) a government is. It is simply isn't an accurate or useful measure. Then again, I will hardly rain on someone's parade and remove it if someone spends their time putting such references in - it doesn't much bother me. I am merely corroborating what Observeroz has said, and would further add that the "notable labor pm's" section in the ALP article seems to add arbitrary and complex duplication. Saruman-the-white (talk) 07:05, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Ok Timeshift, I'm not sure where you draw the line between "scandal" and "fact", but you do seem to be admitting (after much prodding) that historical context beyond mere "acts" and "reforms" CAN BE relevant to sections headed "notable Labor Governments". Hallelujah. Observoz (talk) 07:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Observoz - Each govt section says how the govt lost power. Whitlam lost his by sacking. Mountain molehill. Saruman - invariably, Acts get amended. Even WorkChoices got amended. Rarely anything is ever completely reversed, let alone stay reversed in a wholesale manner. Acts tends to set the future trajectories of policy. I doubt there's much if any in the section which doesn't have a bearing on Australian historical or modern society. Timeshift (talk) 07:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Timeshift - you are ignoring my meaning (i see why you choose the name "shift"). Please read the text above more closely. Nevertheless, you are still admitting that as each section shows how a government lost power etc, then it's a history section, not just a "reform" section.Observoz (talk) 23:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Each govt section has brief incoming and outgoing information, but it is still in essence a section about reform. You're trying to find something that isn't there, give it up. And please give up on the personal attacks too. Timeshift (talk) 06:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

What is the formal relationship between the Libs and the LNP in Qld?

(And with the Nats for that matter)

With all the excitement over the Queensland election, many people now seem to want to count Campbell Newman as a Liberal Premier. While that's a reasonable moral claim, do the Nats have a claim too? Or neither?

Saruman-the-white wrote in an Edit summary last night that the LNP is the Qld branch of the Libs. But the LNP was formed by a merger of the stronger National Party in Queensland with a smaller number of Liberal members. I would be genuinely surprised if those ex-Nats have abandoned their roots so much as to now say that they're part of the national Liberal Party.

So, is the Queensland LNP really a branch of the national Liberal Party? Does it really have no formal relationship with the national National Party? I'm confused. HiLo48 (talk) 02:28, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The LNP is registered federally as the state branch of the Liberal Party, which made things a bit awkward for us at the federal election. We ended up going with treating the LNP as a separate but affiliated entity. The federal LNP members continue to sit in either the Liberal or the National caucuses, much like the NT CLP. So technically, Saruman-the-white is correct: formally the LNP is the state branch of the Liberal Party. Just as we made an exception for the WA Nats, however, I'm inclined to think that treating the LNP just like the CLP (i.e. separate but related to both) is a better idea. Frickeg (talk) 02:40, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The lnp is the state branch of the liberal party. as such it should be treated just the same as the nsw or vic branch of the liberal party. it is officially the state liberal branch and campbell newman is a state premier of the state branch of the liberal party. there are no two ways about it. i have already inserted a note where he is mentioned to clarify that in qld the party goes by the name lnp. that is already taking a cautious approach and attempts to treat it as seperate when it is officially the qld branch of the liberal party would be misleading and fraudulent, not to mention constituting original research or pov counter to the official source. Saruman-the-white (talk) 02:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

OK, so that's the formal situation, but does the federal National Party really make no claim nor take no credit for what has happened in Queensland? HiLo48 (talk) 02:50, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, they do. And I also note that Warren Truss, an LNP member, leads the Nationals federally. As to Saruman's comments, it is clear that this is a special case; the LNP is obviously a very different entity to, say, the NSW or Victorian branches of the Liberals. They are registered as the state branch of the Libs by the AEC, but the Parliament website identifies LNP members with whichever party they caucus with. I also can't find anything on the LNP website that formalises its affiliation with either the Libs or the Nats, so if anyone does have something then that would be helpful. I don't think there's a problem with noting Newman's situation in the lead, but I'd much prefer to see it described as the "affiliated Liberal National Party, formed by a state merger with the National Party" or something similar. I don't believe there can really be much POV involved here either, as I don't see what difference it makes to how good or bad it is. When there are contradictory sources (as there clearly are here), we need to use some discretion. Frickeg (talk) 02:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I will change Newman's part in the intro to "affiliated Queensland branch, the Lib Nat Party" so that no one will object then. There is no question it belongs there though along with the other state premiers. Saruman-the-white (talk) 03:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I have no problems with the revised wording. It might be worth mentioning Newman (or at least the LNP) on the Nats' page as well, though. Frickeg (talk) 03:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Protected

I've protected this page due to protracted edit warring over the political position and ideology labels. Here's a novel idea: Why doesn't someone do some research and find out how the party is labeled in the preponderance of reliable, secondary sources? Start with The Economist and work from there. I'd also advise a review of WP:LEAD; you shouldn't be calling the party centre-right or right-wing or anything else in the infobox and lead unless it's covered and sourced in the body. Trouts all around. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 14:56, 24 August 2012 (UTC)