Template talk:Senate crossbench
 | This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||
| ||||||||
Nats as crossbenchers
[edit]How can the Nats be considered cross-benchers when Scullion is a member of the shadow ministry? Bush shep (talk) 23:50, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
- It might be something worth investigating. Scullion as a CLP member used to (and I thought still does) vote en bloc with the Nats in the Senate, and was the leader of the Nats in the Senate, until was deposed as leader of the Nationals by Joyce, after Joyce got the third of five votes required from the new Nat in the Senate to undertake the coup. It wasn't revealed to the party until after it took place, but Scullion remains deputy leader of the National Party itself. Being a shadow minister doesn't stop someone from being classed as 'a crossbencher' I wouldn't have thought. Timeshift (talk) 04:45, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- The prominence of National Party MPs and Senators (of which I was including Scullion) in the shadow ministry indicates that the coalition remains in tact. That being the case, National Party Senators ought to be considered part of the Opposition, not the cross-bench. Bush shep (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
- Read all the refs at somewhere like Barnaby Joyce. Yes the Nats are still in a coalition with the Libs, but they will no longer necessarily be voting with them, and sit next to the Greens on the crossbenches, with the whole "Now the upper house Nationals might vote against the coalition as a block, Senator Joyce said." bit. Timeshift (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- A few moderate Liberals won't necessarily always vote with their party, but they don't cease to be Opposition members as a result. The Nationals sit alongside the Greens? Well they also sit alongside the Liberals. There is nothing about their seating position that unambiguously marks them as cross-benchers. Further, the aforementioned Scullion sits in amongst the Liberals. [1] Bush shep (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Bush shep is obviously correct. On the criterion offered, Nick Minchin (leader of the Opposition in the Senate) is a cross-bencher.JQ (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Agreed, they are not crossbenchers at this juncture. (One gets in all sorts of tangles in state parliaments with that, but the federal is fairly clearcut I would have thought.) Orderinchaos 11:31, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- Bush shep is obviously correct. On the criterion offered, Nick Minchin (leader of the Opposition in the Senate) is a cross-bencher.JQ (talk) 07:44, 25 November 2009 (UTC)
- A few moderate Liberals won't necessarily always vote with their party, but they don't cease to be Opposition members as a result. The Nationals sit alongside the Greens? Well they also sit alongside the Liberals. There is nothing about their seating position that unambiguously marks them as cross-benchers. Further, the aforementioned Scullion sits in amongst the Liberals. [1] Bush shep (talk) 19:06, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- Read all the refs at somewhere like Barnaby Joyce. Yes the Nats are still in a coalition with the Libs, but they will no longer necessarily be voting with them, and sit next to the Greens on the crossbenches, with the whole "Now the upper house Nationals might vote against the coalition as a block, Senator Joyce said." bit. Timeshift (talk) 02:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)
- The prominence of National Party MPs and Senators (of which I was including Scullion) in the shadow ministry indicates that the coalition remains in tact. That being the case, National Party Senators ought to be considered part of the Opposition, not the cross-bench. Bush shep (talk) 21:59, 1 November 2008 (UTC)
