Talk:2007 Australian federal election

Where in the world are the minor parties

We should have some thing about all the parties not just the major parties and the major minor parties. --59.100.35.155 10:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Opinions?

The following line is simply opinion and assertion without citation: "Labor would also need to win the seat of Wentworth, which has existed since 1901 and never elected a Labor member." I will modify if there are no arguments.Recurring dreams 08:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Back to Bennelong (and title of article)

Firstly, what the hell is 'Australian legislative election'? When has any Australian election ever been referred to as a "legislative election"? Or anyone referred to Cth parliament as the 'legislature'? That's one completely counterintuitive title. Commonwealth, Federal, Australian and Parliamentary (or a mix'n'match combination) would all be better adjectives.

Also, given the hate and then love that developed between Evolver of Borg and Adam, the point(s) about the Bennelong entry seem to have been lost.

1. It's not a 'key marginal', any more than any other marginal is 'key'. Seeing that (on any view) there are peculiar factors that may well take it in a different direction to the electorate as a whole, the fate of Bennelong will actually be an unusually poor barometer of which side will win the entire election, compared with other marginals held by similar margins.

2. "This area of Sydney has undergone substantial demographic change" is an unsourced and vague assertion. I mean, pretty much all areas of Sydney have undergone substantial demographic change in the last 50 years. That demographic change is only relevant in the context of this page if it causes an electoral trend (e.g. Richmond, Adelaide, Kooyong). Bennelong's results have displayed no consistent trend over the last 15 years. In lieu of any evidence (which, if it exists, should be referred to), there's no reason to think that Bennelong's demographic change has either been more substantial, or more electorally significant, than anywhere else. I'd recommend just deleting the sentence.203.3.176.10 04:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Both of these problems have now been addressed. Joestella 19:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Senate Majority

"To gain a majority in the Senate, Labor, the Greens and/or the Democrats would need to win two seats from the Coalition. Given that these parties won three of the six vacancies in each state at the 2001 election, they would have to win four vacancies out of six in two states when these seats come up for re-election in 2007. This is considered unlikely. If Labor or the Greens gain one seat from the Coalition, Steve Fielding of the Family First Party would hold the balance of power."

The author of these comments appears to view the Greens, Democrats and Labor as some kind of block. If the government lost two seats, there would be no majority in the senate. If the government lost two seats, Steven Fielding would not hold the balance of power, he would hold it in conjunction with the Greens and Dems.

"This is considered unlikely". Who consider's it unlikely? Perhaps: "This is unlikely" or, "This would require a signifigant swing against the government" --Kieran Bennett 10:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In reply:

• In the 1996, 1998 and 2001 parliaments the ALP, Greens and Dems did function as an "anti-Howard bloc" on many issues, although not all (the Dems passing the GST being the most obvious example). If these parties were to gain two seats from the Coalition in 2007 they would no doubt do so again, making a Coalition government's life more difficult.
• Fielding's loyalties have not been tested in this parliament because the Coalition has a majority on most issues without him. If the Coalition is re-elected in 2007 but loses one seat to the ALP or Greens, they will need Fielding to pass all legislation, and then his basic loyalties will be exposed. Few doubt that he would support the Coalition most of the time. Thus it is true to say that he would hold the balance of power, between the Coalition and the ALP-Green anti-Howard bloc.
• I am happy to change "This is considered unlikely" to "This would require a signifigant swing" - I haven't worked out exactly what swing would be needed in which states for the Coalition to lose one, let alone two seats (swing is a slipperly concept in Senate elections), but I would imagine the required swing is substantial. Adam 11:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

But this statement still implies that Labor and the Greens/Dems are guaranteed to vote against the Liberals on all legislation. Of course they would vote against the Liberals while they were in power- smaller parties have a history of "ganging up" on the govt to block legislation- who is to say they would not do the same should Labor win the election? Besides there have been notable points in history when Liberal/Greens or Liberal/Dems have teamed up to pass legislation (Liberal/Dems for the GST to pass and Liberal/Greens for the 2005 Budget to pass before the coalition had a senate majority on July 1 of that year). Ronan.evans 10:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have already answered both those points. Adam 11:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed the section slightly to point out that Feilding would only hold balance if Labor/Greens/Dems did vote together. Hope it is acceptable to both sides. Ronan.evans 02:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Your latest edit works well. Ronan.evans 08:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I also changed the section. It was inconsistent, in that it at one point referred to Labor, the Greens and the Democrats as a group, while at other points it assumed that no Democrats were elected. While I don't believe that the Dems will get anyone elected, it's either one way or the other, and to keep it safe we should include them with that "left bloc". I also moved the list of Senators facing re-election. It's listed as a subchapter in the Senate section, but the rest of the section is then listed under that subchapter. Ben Raue (Talk) 08:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried to fix up this section, but talking about what it would require for the Coalition to lose majority, which is much simpler than talking about Labor/Democrats/Greens acting as a block which is clearly not true (eg GST). Also I added that if Labor wins the lower house they'll almost certainly have to work with a minority upper house. Sad mouse 18:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I quote the article:

   * Tasmania: 3.34
   * Victoria: 3.27
   * New South Wales: 3.20
   * South Australia: 3.12
   * Western Australia: 2.97
   * Queensland: 2.74

Notice the Non Labor/Democrats/Greens parties got only 3.73 quota's in Victoria (7 quotas roughly make a whole) yet still managed to get 4 seats. The assumption that 4 quotas are needed for 4 seats is incorrect. Frevidar 13:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. The ALP and the Democrats have never won four seats between them at a half-Senate election in Victoria. Of course you don't need four quotas in primary votes to win four seats: you need four quotas after preferences. Adam 14:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Although the wording was confusing Frevidar is actually right, since he was talking about the Libs/Nats/FF, not ALP/Dem. Yes, it is obvious that the four quotas are after preferences, but that means that it is wrong for the article to use the primary votes to calculate the increase needed to gain seats from the government. JPD (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, a Labor majority in its own right is impossible. They would need to win 25 seats, which would require 4 out of 6 in 5 states. Winning 4 seats requires over 57% of the "preferred" vote... Chrismaltby 06:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Redistribution

Aside from Gwydir what will the proposals mean for the other named seats? (and how much will the final changes be different from the proposals?) J.J. Popplewick 12:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A few things:

• • Greenway - goes from being very marginal Liberal to safe Liberal
  • Hughes - becomes more marginal Liberal
  • Macarthur - has shifted away from the ALP recently, now has been pushed out of reach by being pushed further out of Sydney.
  • Farrer - inclusion of Broken Hill makes it more friendly to ALP.
  • Macquarie - lost Hawkesbury and gained Lithgow and Bathurst, will become marginal and possible gain for ALP in 2007.
  • Calare - Peter Andren's seat has been split in two, making it difficult to predict how Andren would perform in the new Calare, which includes only half of the old Calare.
  • Apparently Lindsay (Penrith), Wentworth (Eastern Suburbs) and Bennelong (Ryde & Epping) have also become more marginal Liberal seats. Ben Raue (Talk) 14:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't done any calculations yet (I am in Thailand this week), but that all seems to be correct. The only really important changes are the abolition of Gwydir, the conversion of Greenway into a safe Liberal seat and the change of Macquarie from Liberal to Labor. Hughes certainly becomes more winnable, particularly if Vale retires. The changes in Wentworth and Bennelong are fairly minor. Broken Hill only has 13,000 voters these days and doesn't make Farrer loseable for the Libs. I would think Andren can win Calare on any boundaries, although since he is from Bathurst he might run in Macquarie which would be very interesting. Adam 06:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Will there be any major changes in the final boundaries compared to the proposals? J.J. Popplewick 08:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been known to happen. The abolition of Gwydir and the creation of a very big Parkes is open to challenge on community of interest grounds. An alternative would be abolishing Farrer and dividing it between Riverina and Parkes, while ceding parts of Parkes to Grydir. That would avoid creating a huge western NSW seat. Adam 03:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are some rough calculations of the new 2-party majorities in the most marginal government seats. They are literally "original research" (by me) so I suppose they can't be used, but I will leave that to others. Possibly if I post them to my own website someone else can cite them.

• Macquarie NSW (Kerry Bartlett, Lib) ALP 0.5 (changed by redistribution)
• Kingston SA (Kym Richardson) Liberal 0.1
• Bonner Qld (Ross Vasta) Liberal 1.0
• Parramatta NSW (Julie Owens, ALP) Liberal 1.0 (changed by redistribution)
• Wakefield SA (David Fawcett) Liberal 0.7
• Makin SA (Trish Draper) Liberal 0.9
• Braddon Tas (Mark Baker) Liberal 1.1
• Hasluck WA (Stuart Henry) Liberal 1.8
• Stirling WA (Michael Keenan) Liberal 2.0
• Wentworth NSW (Malcolm Turnbull) Liberal 2.5
• Bass Tas (Michael Ferguson) Liberal 2.6
• Solomon NT (David Tollner) Liberal 2.8
• Lindsay NSW (Jacquie Kelly) Liberal 2.9
• Moreton Qld (Gary Hardgrave) Liberal 3.0
• Eden-Monaro NSW (Gary Nairn) Liberal 3.3
• Bennelong NSW (John Howard Liberal 4.1
• Dobell NSW (Ross Ticehurst) Liberal 4.8
• McMillan Vic (Russell Broadbent) Liberal 4.9
• Blair Qld (Cameron Thompson) Liberal 5.0
• Page NSW (Ian Causley) National 5.5
• Wright Qld (new seat) National 6.0
• Longman Qld (Mal Brough) Liberal 6.0
• Herbert Qld (Peter Kindsay) Liberal 6.0

Two seats have changed sides - Macquarie from Lib to ALP and Parramatta vice versa. Thus Labor still needs 16 seats, everything down to Dobell. If Bartlett holds Macquarie Labor will need McMillian as well. Adam 04:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the Parliamentary Library's table of the 16 most marginal government seats, as grossly misreported in today's Australian:

Dobell (NSW) 4.8
Bennelong (NSW) 4.2
Eden-Monaro (NSW) 3.3
Lindsay (NSW) 2.9
Solomon (NT) 2.8
Moreton (Qld) 2.8
Bass (Tas) 2.6
Wentworth (NSW) 2.5
Stirling (WA) 2.0
Hasluck (WA) 1.8
Braddon (Tas) 1.1
Parramatta (NSW) 1.0
Makin (SA) 0.9
Wakefield (SA) 0.7
Bonner (Qld) 0.5
Kingston (SA) 0.1

Adam 06:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

no mention of Labor marginals

The House of Representatives section is therefore unbalanced.Rob.derosa 04:42, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Government marginals are much more important, because they are the seats that the Opposition must win to gain government. When the redistribution is finished we can add a complete table. Adam 04:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The way it is at the moment implies there are no seats that the Govnt can win, therefore it is unbalanced. Either have tables for both or neither.

Then do some research and put them in yourself. Adam 04:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that government and opposition should be treated equally on an issue like this. The truth is that government marginals are more important than opposition marginals. If the government wins opposition seats, the composition of Parliament changes, but the government stays with the same party. Yet if the opposition wins enough seats, then the government will change. But I'll add a clause stating that Labor may well lose seats, etc. Ben Raue (Talk) 08:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As it stands at the moment either Julie Owens, Labor Member for Parramatta, needs to be removed from the list and the 16th most marginal Coalition parties' seat added or we need to change the phrasing of the introductory paragraph: On the new boundaries, the following are the Coalition parties' 16 most marginal seats. Assuming a uniform swing, Labor will need to win all these seats to gain government. These seats are commonly called the "key marginals."Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 10:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Preferred PM

Perhaps some detail on Howard vs Beazley would be good. Look at 19/07/06:Personality traits of Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition on http://www.newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/polling/display_poll_data.pl?url_caller=latest&state=Any&mode=file&page=Search ... Howard has the numbers on decisiveness, vision, and understanding of major issues, whilst Beazley has the numbers on caring for people, being likeable, in touch with the voters, and more trustworthy. I was quite suprised myself at how well Beazley had done in those areas. Perhaps a preferred PM section should be written up in the article by someone, or do people prefer to keep the leaders of the parties out of it? Timeshift 18:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we use numbers from a commercial poll? There is no doubt that they are both excellent, though quite different, leaders. Elections nowadays are usually "presidential" style, with the campaign depending on the leader to a huge extent. Look at Latham last time around - any number of excellent Labor candidates musy have been grinding their teeth over the way he performed, and the Liberal newcomers elected then would probably be John Howard's strongest supporters. We should focus on the leaders, but it would be difficult to keep POV out of such intangibles as "likeableness" etc. I've fixed the image as best I can. --Jumbo

2007 election issues

Is there any reason why someone keeps on deleting what are cited by the media as the main issues in the lead-up to the election? One would think that a list of those topics most highly cited by political commentators as election issues would be worth mentioning in an article on the election. This is the text I added:

Issues expected to play the highest importance in the upcoming election campaign include Howard's controversial advocacy of nuclear energy, global warming policies, new pro-business Industrial Relations laws, increases in interest rates, the corruption in the AWB, Iraq war policy, and Beazley's personal unpopularity.

Okay, it isn't great, but it is kind of hard for people to work on improving it when it is constantly deleted. I honestly can't see why people are citing this as original research, each of these issues gets major play in the Australian media in regards to the 2007 election.

Eg http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,20801241-5007146,00.html http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,20782414-5006301,00.html http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2006/s1788660.htm http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/next-to-the-beazer-protesters-sounded-mildly-irritated/2006/11/30/1164777724420.html etc etc

These are the big issues, you could probably add water to the list too. So perhaps try to fix up the section rather than just delete it. Sad mouse 21:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Fixing the section is easier the more decent stuff there is to work with. "Predicted by the Australian media" is better than the original "expected", but still seems quite weaselly. However, the main problem is that most of the references given don't actually back up what is claimed in the sentence. It is original research to take the issues you see most mentioned in the media and say that they are predicted as the highest importance issues. (It's arguably even OR to say that they are the issues most mentioned in the media.) Yes, it's worth mentioning important issues, but it's hard enough to do that well aftdr the election, and takes even more care now. JPD (talk) 12:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm also not comfortable with the issues being mentioned. I agree it seems like original research and too open to bias. -- Barrylb 03:12, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

True, the section is open to bias, but we just have to police that as a group. To try to impart an understanding of the election to our readers without some discussion of the key issues would be impossible. I would suggest listing the issues as identified by the major parties (easier to verify) - the media will take their lead from there. Joestella 19:39, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Nwe opinion polls

I was watching SkyNews earlier today on Austar, and they showed a newly revised opinion poll showing that popularity has shifted, with Howard at 45% and Rudd at 43%. Now, does anyone have a concrete source we can use for these numbers? CeeWhy2 07:12, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Senate table

It seems that both on Firefox and IE, the table for current senators under the senate section do not display. The toggle option already shows hide, so I click on it, nothing happens, click on it again (as show) and only then does it show the table. Are other people getting this? Timeshift 10:24, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The default should be fixed now.--cj | talk 11:36, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Differing margins

I'm trying to figure out why the stats im using for the pendulum (source here) are different to those in the marginal seats table used here... does the marginal seats table use margins based on post-redistribution and my source pre-redistribution, or the other way around? Timeshift 15:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

The text accompanying the table in the article claims that the figures there are post-redistribution. (A source really should be given for those figures!) The other table you link to includes Gwydir and not Flynn, so it would appear to be pre-redistribution. (It's not clear to me what publication this table is from, but the URL also hints that it may have been published before the redristribution!) JPD (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I've it. Timeshift 17:12, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

My source for the pendulum was Malcolm Mackerras in The Australian, but I can't now give a date for it. Adam 08:46, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I've found a source and will make corrections and finish the pendulum when I can. Timeshift 09:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

When you say "corrections," bear in mind that there is no absolutely "correct" version of the pendulum, because NSW and Qld have been redistributed, and the 2-party majorities for seats in these states must be guesswork. Mackerras's pendulum will differ slightly from Antony Green's or the AEC's, but none of them is more correct than the other. Adam 10:07, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

It's still safer and to show the post-redistribution result as opposed to the pre isn't it? Timeshift 10:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes of course an estimate of the post-redistribution 2-party majorities must be shown, but they can only be estimates. There is no exact way of re-allocating votes from the old boundaries to the new boundaries. Adam 10:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Found an excellent resource on Pollbludger for the redistributions. All done. Timeshift 08:02, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Whatever table we end up using, it should have, either as a footnote, or more clearly as part of the table, something saying where the redistributed figures come from. As Adam says, they are only estimates, and we need to say whose estimates they are. JPD (talk) 09:40, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Old people in Parliament

I have removed the two lists of old people who are apparently ripe for retirement. Either source retirement speculation or leave it out; age has never been a barrier to serving in parliament. Joestella 19:42, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I think it was a useful list at an earlier stage, but most if not all of those on that list have now confirmed that they are indeed standing. Rebecca 22:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Adam 00:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Let's not compile such a list in future. At least not without credible retirement speculation for a given MP in the media first. Joestella 21:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Gigantic tables

Attention whoever is creating and inserting enormous tables: I know making tables is fun, but they must be of a proportionate size to their importance in the article. I have removed the table showing the complete membership of the Senate: it is not directly relevant to this article. The "pendulum" table is far too big and elaborate for the purposes of this article. All this is needed here is a simple list. Also the marginal seats should come at the top, not at the bottom. I suggest it be restructured and moved to its own article. If this doesn't happen I will delete it. Adam 00:13, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

But the pendulum table is one of the clearest ways to show the state of the parties, a list with all marginals mixed from both :parties tells a much less clear story. The only change I could suggest is that it be alighted at the safest, not the most :marginals seat, as to more clearly show which seats are needed to change, and how big the Government's majority is, in one :glance. PfkaH 01:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree a pendulum table is needed. My point is that this one is far too big and obtrusive. Also, as I said, the most marginal seats should appear at the top, not at the bottom. Adam 01:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

My smaller pendulum here got removed. Timeshift 03:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Even that one is too big, as I said when you posted it. In that point in the article all we need is a table of the key marginals. The full pendulum should go either at the end of the article, or in a separate article. Adam 04:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. First, I have only ever seen the pendulum published with the most marginal at the bottom - as the pendulum metaphor implies (a motionless pendulum points down, to 0%). Second, the state of the parties in the Senate, and in the reps, is directly relevant to this article. The table consolidates the available information and makes it comprehensive. Joestella 11:28, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The state of the parties in the Senate and the Reps can be stated in two sentences, and indeed is already stated. It doesn't need two humungous and not-very-clear tables. I agree that in a standard pendulum the marginal seats appear at the bottom, but the table as presented is not really a pendulum, it is two parallel lists. The important information in this list is: what are the 16 most vulnerable government seats? This should appear at the top where it can be seen most readily. Adam 11:34, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have only ever seen an electoral pendulum with the most marginal seats at the top - why on earth would the most irrelevant information (the seats that couldn't change hands even in a landslide) be highlighted at the top? Rebecca 12:33, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

When the pendulum is actually drawn as a pendulum, then the focal point is at the bottom. JPD (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to get into an argument about what a pendulum is. The point is that we need a simple and clear table showing the most marginal seats in order, with the most marginal at the top. The table we have is not such a table. I am going to move this table to a new page, and reinstate the simple table we had previously. Adam 13:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have now done so. The new article Australian general election 2007: House of Representatives table needs some explanatory text. I will revert any attempt to reinsert the big table in this article. Adam 13:32, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I have replaced the list of coalition marginals with a list of all marginals. We can't say for sure which way the swing is going, what with Wikipedia not being a crystal ball. If this is still too "gigantic" for Adam Carr's taste, simply remove rows from the top and replace the term "marginal" with "most marginal" or "margins of less than". Joestella 22:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The "pendulum" is a standard feature of Australian politics, and it is drawn with the marginals at the bottom. It is not inherent in the structure of a table that the most important information goes at the top - recent entries and totals go at the bottom, for example. Our readers will not find the pendulum-like order any more difficult to read.

That said, the prose should probably do more to highlight the most marginal seats on the coalition side. Joestella 22:19, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I still think the table is ugly and unclear, and less informative than the smaller one. But I no longer care enough to argue about it. Adam 04:46, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Issues

That list of issues looks a touch biased to me. I suggest that the big issues will be:

1. the economy
2. education
3. health

I don't think anybody cares about AWB to the extent of it swaying a vote, and I am surprised to find it listed as one of the major issues. --Pete 00:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I found the best way to tackle this when I worked toward getting the 2006 South Australian general election rated as one of Wikipedia's featured articles is to simply include every single issue you can find as long as you can provide citation for it - that way there can be no claims of bias. And also, the issues section does not belong in the lead. Timeshift 01:02, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I've reworded it a bit. Have removed AWB. + I agree with Timeshift, it shouldn't be in the lead. Rafy 14:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The South Australian article, of course, includes a bunch of issues that achieved no profile in the campaign – the text concedes as much. A better starting-point is what politicians say the big issues are; or failing that, what voters tell pollsters the big issues are. Joestella 14:22, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Top Table

I'm not too sure Preferred prime-minister/2PP ratings should be included in the top table below the pictures of Howard and Rudd. To put them in a table like that is to present them as fact- yet they are merely a reflection of a poll of a relatively small - albeit representative - slice of the Australian population. By all means keep the table of poll results futher down the page because that explains the results are not fact - just a poll result. The 2PP of the last election should probably be kept in the top table because it is an accurate reflection of an actual election result. If one wants to keep the Preffered PM and 2PP section in the top table it should probably be labelled as "AC Neilsen Poll - Preffered PM" and "AC Neilsen Poll - 2PP" to reflect that these are just poll results - and not fact. Might be worth including Newspoll results there as well. Hope I havent put anyone out and rest assured this is not a critisism of the person who included these stats in the table, in fact thanks for taking the time to try and improve this article. Cheers ronan.evans 01:17, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. Remove them from the top table, especially since there are multiple pollsters. Rocksong 01:23, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

This table is the product of a long discussion and is an attempt at a standard. There is a field for caveats and such to go in the footnotes. But the best objective estimate of the leaders' standing among voters is absolutely and vitally relevant to a campaign. If there's a case for ACNeilsen or Roy Morgan rather than Newspoll, I'd like to hear it. But if you want to change the table, you might as well change all of the similar tables - and discuss it here: Template talk:Infobox Election Campaign. Joestella 14:16, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with you that Newspoll is far more reputable than the other polls - but you seem to have entirely ignored what I said. Point is that poll results are not 100% accurate and this should be noted rather than being presented as an iron clas fact. ronan.evans 09:04, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Retiring MPs

Joestella why did you delete the list of retiring MPs and Senators? PMA 08:04, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The information is retained in text, although I question its relevance. The people listed are all backbenchers. I continue my objection to mention of MPs' ages as justification for retirement speculation. Joestella 14:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Rudd calls for early election

Opposition leader Kevin Rudd demanded an early election to take place in April 2007 after being attacked in parliament over his links with Brian Burke. "If you had an election now, you'd have to have a separate half-Senate election next year. It just shows his inexperience. He doesn't even understand how our political system works," Mr Howard replied. ... Shanahan, Dennis (2007-03-06). "Labor's lead hits record high". The Australian. Retrieved 2007-04-15. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

That Rudd called for, and Howard ruled out, an early 2007 election is relevant to the issue of timing, the subject of this section. Although history will not judge any such speculation kindly, the fact is it's a major issue now. It didn't look good for Rudd, granted, but that doesn't make coverage of it POV. I'd be interested to know CJ and Alex's objections to it. Joestella 14:20, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Because the issue isn't and never was an actual election call, Rudd was just politicking as usual - demonstrating the over-reaction of Costello and Co. by saying that if they really felt the sky was falling in because of the Burke stuff then they would call an early election, it was also a means to make fun of Howard and how bad he was polling at the time. Howard (also politicking) decided to take the call literally and mocked the 'calling' for an early election, deliberately missing the point... and it is only columnists such as Shanahan who look for angles from which to spin their own political philosophies who would think that it is or ever was a real issue. The paragraph you put in there was not about the timing of the actual election, I don't think you can seriously suggest that Rudd actually thought that Howard might (or should) call an early election, it was just part of the day-to-day spin from both sides which had absolutely no substance from start to finish. Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 14:40, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Your position sounds not unreasonable as opinions go, but in a Wikipedia context it also seems a bit like original research. Find me a reliable source saying it "absolutely no substance from start to finish" and add it to the paragraph. Find me two and I agree the whole thing can go. Joestella 15:12, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

It is my understanding that in Wikipeadia you need to provide sources in order to include content not to remove, anyone can challenge content for any valid reason, the responsibility is on the person who wants to include the content to achieve consensus that the content is appropriate. Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 15:25, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Well if you can't meet my burden of proof, I say name yours, sir. Joestella 15:45, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

:) I didn't say I couldn't, I just said I didn't need to because I'm not trying to add the new content. As for to what level you would need to prove your case, you need to show me sources from a neutral, notable reporter (Having a wikipedia article and/or a blog does not make an author a significant political reporter or mean they are respected in their field) that makes me or a consensus agree that the statement is notable and neutral. Ta, Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 10:49, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Retirement

The information is retained in text, although I question its relevance. The people listed are all backbenchers. I continue my objection to mention of MPs' ages as justification for retirement speculation. Joestella 14:13, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

The ALP has a rule that MPs and Senators must retire at the election closest to them turning 65.

Also, as people reach their early and mid sixties a lot of them do retire at that point so mentioning MPs and Senators in that age bracket as possible retirement candidates isn't that unreasonable given the likelihood from what happens in the community. Don't just delete things willy nilly or without Consensus. PMA 02:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Do they really have this rule? Could you show me a link stating it? It sounds ridiculous to me that the ALP would discriminate on the basis of age! For a party that considers itself to be more inclusive than the Coalition this seems like one heck of a double standard. ronan.evans 09:09, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Yes, they do. It isn't always applied - MPs can request that the party executive waive the requirement, but it often cdoes the retirement of MPs approaching 65. Rebecca 01:38, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

What happens if John Howard doesn't win his seat?

What happens if John Howard doesn't win his seat?

In the unlikely circumstance that John Howard loses Bennelong but the coalition still retains a majority of seats, then a new Liberal party leader will need to be selected by the party after the election who will then become Prime Minister. Timeshift 00:46, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Incorrect, Timeshift my friend. Astute election followers will remember that during the 1998 election, Kim Beazley faced a similar scenario. Due to a massive swing in 1996, Beazley's electorate of Brand became the most marginal seat in Australia, with just a handful of votes keeping him in office. Consequently, as he lead Labor to the 1998 poll, many pundits were speculating on the possibility that Beazley would lose his seat but Labor would win the election. In this scenario, there is an option whereby one of the elected government members would forfeit their position and allow the elected leader of the party to occupy the seat, thereby allowing him to govern the nation. Accordingly, were Howard to lose Bennelong yet the Coalition get back, Howard would still be prime minister as long as the party elected him as their parliamentary leader.I elliot 17:24, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The by-election would have to occur first though ;-) Look at 1929 - Stanley Bruce not only lost the election, he lost his seat. Did get a by-election organised and parachute back in? Nah, he waited till 1931, got his seat back, then let Lyons be PM :P Timeshift 04:07, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Timeshift is right. An electorate cannot just swap members, there has to be a by-election first. And for that to happen there has to be legislative action, requiring election of a speaker in the new parliament. Much easier to just elect a new leader. Kewpid 11:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Timeshift is right. An electorate cannot just swap members Maybe you should actually look into this before making such a statement. As I said earlier, under this exceptional circumstance, that is exactly what will happen.I elliot 02:36, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Could you please point me to any sort of constitutional or legislative provision that would allow such a thing to happen? Kewpid 04:34, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I elliot is simply wrong - there is no possible way an electorate can "swap members". If the Prime Minister was to lose their seat, another member would have to resign, thus creating a by-election for the PM to run in. There is no such thing as "exceptional circumstances". He could remain PM in the interim, as Rafy explains below, but he would have to contest and win said by-election if he wanted to remain in parliament. Rebecca 05:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Rebecca is exactly right. Maybe it is instructive to look at John Gorton, who was Prime Minister for a short time without being a Member of Parliament. Following the death of Harold Holt, Senator Gorton was selected as Liberal leader. While there is nothing to prevent a PM from being in the Senate (and many Senators have been senior ministers, eg Gareth Evans), such a PM would face practical difficulties. Gorton resigned as a Senator and contested a by-election for the seat of Higgins (inadvertently vacated by Holt), which he won. --Pete 07:13, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

It does not require legislative action. When there is no speaker of the house, the Governor-General may issue the writs for a by-election resulting from any vacancy. (see sections 33 and 37 of the constitution). The Prime Minister could retain his commission for up to 3 months (section 64), in which time the by-election would have been held and he would again be a member of parliament. Rafy 05:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Rudd photo

Rather than get in to a revert war, can people please state which image they prefer (this or this), and why. Timeshift 04:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Timeshift, I actually prefer the old one (second in your links), I do think he looks a bit strange in the new one (first in your links), maybe it is just my screen. Cheers, Alec ^{-(answering machine)} 05:33, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I also prefer the second (outside) one. I'm not sure what it is about the first, but it's not very flattering. He's looks like he's grimacing. Peter Ballard 11:01, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

He's pulling a non-flattering face in both of them - it's just that the second one is lower quality, so it doesn't show as much! JPD (talk) 14:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Image wise the first is better but overall the second suits wikipedia Crested Penguin 09:50, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Wouldnt it be better to use the party logos? This isnt a prime ministerial election. Rafy 11:36, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

There are no prime ministerial elections, because prime ministers exist in the westminster system as leaders of their party. They are very important because they are the ones who influence who people vote for. Look at the ALP vote during Beazley and during Rudd. I think of it, simplistically, for a US comparison, as presidential election + legislative election = australian general election - we are choosing which party to govern, ergo we are choosing which leader to be the next Prime Minister of Australia. Timeshift 15:53, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

The second image is going to be deleted unless the source is provided, anyway. JPD (talk) 10:07, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it not a crop of a shot that Dr. Carr took? Michael ^talk 10:09, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Maybe the references to first and second are misleading. This one is a crop from an Adam Carr image, and is tagged as such. I can't see any sign that this image uploaded by User:Dr Michael Black, and now tagged as having no source, is a Carr image. JPD (talk) 10:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Image:Rudd4.JPG. Michael ^talk 10:42, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

OK. It's not even a crop - just a lower resolution. If we want to use that image, we should actually crop it, and it woudl be much more suitable. JPD (talk) 11:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Question on Swing of Seats Needed.

Okay, this may seem like a stupid question so please bare with me. Why is it that it states the the Rudd Campaign needs only 16 seats to win government in the info box when just above it says that the government has 87 seats to Labor's 60. Surely that means that there are 27 seats needed by Labor? What have I missed? I know that 12 of those seats are Nationals seats, but if they are in coalition then shouldn't their combined number be the target for Labor? Couldn't the Liberals still form government in the Coalition with the Nationals despite being smaller than Labor? Sorry, I have searched and found no answer to this question of mine. Any help is appreciated, cheers! Chocolatemax 10:31, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

If Labor have 60 seats and the coalition have 87, if Labor gains a seat from the coalition, what happens to those two numbers? Ok, now keep counting :-) Timeshift 10:33, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

i.e It's a zero-sum game -- Rafy 11:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

But then there's the 3 independents. So let's put it this way: there are 150 seats, so a party needs 76 or more to have a majority. So Labor needs 16 more to get to 76. Peter Ballard 10:37, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Swing for Coalition

I don't profess to understand the Australian political science conventions, but is 0.0% meant to be the maximum swing the Coalition can take against it if it's to retain power? Surely there's some level of downturn that would still see them in power? In the UK often a negative swing figure is given for the government - e.g. "a uniform swing against them of 4.3% will reduce the parliamentary majority to 1". Timrollpickering 11:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Are you refering to the 0.0% in the box to the right? Because I believe that is the swing required to retain government, and since they are already in government they don't require a swing to retain the majority. The text next to 0.0% says "Swing needed", and they don't require a swing lol. I think someone is taking that a little too literally.

But I guess you mean there should be a percentage there that indicates the most extreme swing it can sustain but still have a majority. Well... I don't know what that would be. If Labor need a 4.8% swing would the Coalition merely require anything < 4.8%? I have no idea, that just seems logical to me but I might be missing something obvious. Cheers, Rothery 12:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

Campaign section/page

I know the campaign hasn't officially started yet, but I think we should have a section of the page or a new page that details the lead-up to the election. Maybe a good starting point could be Rudd becoming Labor leader. It could detail policy releases, scandals etc. Just a thought, Rothery 12:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC).

Images

Other than just being the geekiest possible images of our fine and respectable leaders, they're also, as AUSPIC images, not as copyright free as using the other ones—one of which is from a US Govt. source (public domain), and the other which was taken by the eminent Dr Carr (copyright released).

It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever to claim the geeky images as more suitable when they're of a dubious copyright status. And, whatever happened to "I'm 50/50 on this image change, so i have no qualms if someone wants to change it back" in the edit summary? Michael ^talk 09:02, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

50/50 due to the size, it didn't work having a big head for Rudd and a small one for Howard. Then I came across the AUSPIC tag, and realised that there are no copyright issues at all for the official ones. We have express permission. Timeshift 09:05, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Just to chip in here - that is a big problem, not a release from copyright problems. Images that Wikipedia could use "with permission" alone have been banned for at least a year now. If we're going to keep them, the permission is irrelevant; we need to have a watertight fair use claim. Rebecca 09:23, 23 June 2007 (UTC)