Talk:2007 Australian federal election/Archive 4

Results

Wooohooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (John Howard concedes defeat 21:45 AEST) --Psud (talk) 11:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Whilst no one is more pleased about this than me (metaphorically speaking), I think we should keep this page for discussing atircle improvements...

Oh, what the hell, we've suffered so long, it's a great, great night! Bruiseviolet (talk) 12:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

That was discussing improvements to the article - note the last bit, data including a time reference! ;) --Psud (talk) 13:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Just be sure to move your money to US dollars, as they dollar is surely ganna drop ;-) --58.111.143.164 (talk) 12:44, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Rubbish. However, if the dollar does drop, be sure to invest in export companies: they'll make a motza. - 220.237.19.227 (talk) 13:33, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the dollar rose this morning. The markets like certainty. A strong win either way would have been good. The nightmare scenario for a currency is a hung parliament or an unsure result. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.249.210 (talk) 02:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd rather Euros or Pounds, given how the USD has been performing of late Xt828 (talk) 13:06, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Wow, if 86 to 62 (the predictions) are right, that's the same as what the parties held in 1987! And Rudd's 2pp is only 0.02 different from Hawke's 1983! As if it ends up being old unreliable Roy on 53.5 percent that seems to have got closest to the real result! Hah! (not to mention the 53 I predicted Friday on my userpage :)) Timeshift (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I take note that even Hewson got a higher primary vote than this. Timeshift (talk) 17:16, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Table

I think "Lose" should be removed from Howard's party status on the right, i looked through the previous election records and none of them list any of the failed parties as "Lost" or "Lose" - i think it's just a parting stab at the liberals by labor supports and it does not belong in an unbiased encyclopedia.

Either it should be removed, or "Lose" should be added to all previous election pages. - 121.44.18.218 (talk) 13:18, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

And to ensure consistency, I've also removed WIN from Kevin Rudd's box. Bruiseviolet (talk) 14:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Consistency in what sense? The anon (quite reasonably) suggest that the format should be the same as that used in articles about previous elections. I will bring the table back in line with 1996 and 1983. JPD (talk) 15:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This article needs a few things

Firstly, where is the {{current}} tag? Also, it is saying things that have already happened in the future tense. - 220.237.19.227 (talk) 13:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Not sure. Have re-added the tags. Timeshift (talk) 16:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Picture/table overlap

On my screen the pictures are overlapping the results table, so i can't see the top right quarter of it. Totnesmartin (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I can't see how this would be the case unless you're running the biggest res on the smallest screen possible. Timeshift (talk) 08:08, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No, its 800x600 on a 14 inch (ish) screen. Totnesmartin (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Close enough. Timeshift (talk) 16:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Error

"At least five other cabinet members were defeated-- Mal Brough, Peter Dutton, De-Anne Kelly, Gary Nairn and Teresa Gambaro." Several of these mentioned were not Cabinet Members but just ministers. 58.178.62.194 (talk) 23:30, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Has Dutton conceded yet? I understood he's in serious danger, but could hang on. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

And according to today's news [1] he's leading the tally. -- JackofOz 22:43, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}

"Informal" should link to Spoiled vote. 68.39.174.238 (talk) 19:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Fixed both. Thanks for the suggestions. Iorek (talk) 01:19, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Television Coverage

I am unsure for other channels, and it may seem trivial, but the news break for Channel Seven actually ran for 20 minutes in each state (from 6pm - 6:20pm) and whilst the news breaks were on in each states, other states not in the same time zone still had the coverage running. Lynx Raven Raide (talk) 01:32, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The SBS, in Queensland at least, ran an election coverage programme very similar to that of the ABC or any other network - they had a panel of four in the studio, live crosses to seats of interest, and some roving reporters. I actually found their production more polished and professional than any of the other networks. Xt828 (talk) 03:02, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox

The infobox (template?) with the coat of arms at the top has Kevin Rudd described as "Prime Minister-designate". This should be "Prime Minister-elect". I'd change it myself but I have no idea how to fiddle with infoboxes/templates. Can somebody help me out here? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There was discussion about this on the Kevin Rudd page, and the consensus was that "Prime Minister-designate" was the correct term, since while his party was elected to form government, they were the ones that chose him as leader, not the people. Lynx Raven Raide (talk) 08:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Forgive me, but I see zero evidence of any such consensus. Various people have argued there very strongly for "Prime Minister-elect", and that terminology appears in Rudd's article. If there's any consensus, imo it's for "Prime Minister-elect", not "Prime Minister-designate". -- JackofOz (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I see the problem I raised has now been fixed. What I still want to know is how this is done. Anyone? -- JackofOz (talk) 12:18, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

There is an edit (the small e) letter at the bottom right of the infobox. I don't know if all templates have them, (I think they might all have to now) but if they don't, you can find them out by editing the page, getting the template name, and adding it to then end of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template: . Hope that helps. Iorek (talk) 12:41, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I just ran a quick search on Google and it is very confusing as both terms are used in different countries, and when entering a search for the proper term, there was no answer, just the same articles as searching the terms individually. Lynx Raven Raide (talk) 00:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Iorek, thanks but there's no 'e' on these infoboxes. I'm not sure where adding the name of this infobox to the Template list gets me in terms of being able to edit the box. -- JackofOz (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

It should get you Here, and then you can hit the edit tab. No e? This specific template has an edit link, but others, such as at the bottom of the article, do. For me, anyway. Could it have something to do with the edit section preferences? Here's what they look like to me; example 1 example 2 Iorek (talk) 23:07, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Bellwether

Eden-Monaro always attracts a lot of attention because it is, as the media always characterise it, "the bellwether seat of Eden-Monaro". They say this because it's gone to the government of the day at every election since 1972. However, what about Division of Macarthur, which has gone to the government of the day at every election since 1949? It seems Pat Farmer (Liberal) has held on to the seat this time, so it's no longer a bellwether. But it was one for 58 years, a lot longer than Eden-Monaro. I wonder why the media always focusses on Eden-Monaro as if it were the only bellwether seat in the country (there may be more than these 2 for all I know). Is it because Queanbeyan is just across the border from Canberra, making it an easy 15-minute trip for Canberra-based journos? Any clues? (I note even our bellwether article mentions Eden-Monaro but as far as I can tell has never mentioned Macarthur - not that it matters any more). -- JackofOz (talk) 05:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I saw this subject discussed somewhere, perhaps, Crikey, where it was pointed out that through re-distributions Eden-Monaro always looks roughly the same (although it has included Goulburn), while Macarthur has moved around quite a bit, in the past being quite rural, and now clearly being suburban. Thus Macarthur's tendency to go with government appears more fortuitous.--Grahamec (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

In the case of Eden-Monaro it is usually seen as a cross-section of Australia, containing diverse areas within the boundaries, from urban areas such as Queanbeyan to rural areas. Macarthur, As Grahamec has pointed out, does not have the equal diversity and its boundaries haven't been as consistent as Eden-Monaro. If I remember rightly, there is actually a few seats which have consistently changed with governments, but I think it is the nature of Eden-Monaro which makes it a focal point. Lynx Raven Raide (talk) 07:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks for the replies, folks. -- JackofOz (talk) 12:13, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

That's all good info and probably should be included in an article. The anti-bellwethers are pretty much as useful as a bellwether in determining the new government. Robert Brockway (talk) 18:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Are there any anti-bellwethers? And by that term, do you mean seats that consistantly go the opposite way of bellwethers? Lynx Raven Raide (talk) 00:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I assume that's what it means. I seem to recall there have been seats that have gone with the opposition for certain significant periods. I might do some research on this. -- JackofOz (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Division of Stirling is a bit of an anti-bellwether, I don't think there are any actual anti-bellwethers.--Grahamec (talk) 11:24, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Since 1969 Swan in WA appears to of gone the opposite to each Party winning Government.petedavo (talk) 21:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Results table - sources

Apart from the ABC and AEC references I added, i'm not sure where others may have got the 'other' figures from, as they give each party's tally individually. Can anyone enlighten me? Timeshift (talk) 08:52, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I presume that the "other" was aggregaged from the AEC site. I've updated the Reps, but other figure previously included independents and I've taken them out.--Grahamec (talk) 10:28, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Graham. Good work on all your cleanup edits, always appreciated. Timeshift (talk) 10:47, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick reminder that per all the previous election results, the table total is for formal, counted votes only - ie: the total of votes should be the sum of the numbers above it. Informal/turnout numbers are above the table. Timeshift (talk) 12:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

The total is not going to be the sum of the numbers above it if you do not update "others" when you update the rest. There is hardly ever a source which has the others figures already aggregated, but the easiest way to it is to subtract the party figures (including independent, as Grahamec points out - I must have been in a hurry, as I got it right with the %age) from the total. JPD (talk) 13:58, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Does anyone know where to find the percentage of senate votes counted? Can't seem to find it... Timeshift (talk) 15:28, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't see it either, and calculated it too. I didn't notice that it hadn't been updated since my edit - I'll fix it now. JPD (talk) 15:56, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

We have an issue, in that previous election results have included the CLP in the LPA in the lower, but not in the upper, as the results are based on the UWA source. This is in conflict with the way it has been done so far on this election, which is to include the CLP votes in other for both houses. I propose the slight adjustments ive made, then once all the results are known then uniformity can be returned to. Timeshift (talk) 15:52, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I see the issue, but don't quite understand the proposed solution. The only difference I can see is that you have left the Others figure blank in the HR table. There isn't really any point to this unless the percentage and swing columns are also left blank. We would have further problems if Solomon were to swing back, but that is unlikely. I would suggest either adding the CLP figures to the LPA figures (despite the fact that the UWA database has not done this yet - simple addition for presentation in a table like this has never been consider OR before), or listing them separately (which seems over the top, but we are already doing that for the Senate). More importantly, I think the previous election articles could really do with a footnote explaining that the LPA row includes CLP votes - putting them together is sensible, but not so obvious that it doesn't need explanation, especially when see them separately in the table immediately below. JPD (talk) 17:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest i'm not sure what the best solution is. I'm just wanting the results counted ASAP so it can be properly standardised. Timeshift (talk) 16:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Also, the counted figure for the senate can be found as the total at the bottom of the AEC link. Timeshift (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Was that there at the beginning of the week? I looked there - maybe I'm blind. Anyway, as far as being properly standardised goes, I think being clear about how each table is constructed is more important than which standard we choose. If previous election's Liberal rows include CLP figures, it really should be noted. JPD (talk) 13:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Is giving weeks labels WP:OR?

I really don't think we should give a name or title or comment to the the weeks during the campaign. Any attempt at giving a definition of what we believed was the most important issue that week is simply WP:OR IMHO. Timeshift (talk) 11:34, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure of this, because the reasons the labels are there, I feel, is to give a timeline for the election campaign. How this is against WP:OR has got me baffled.Lynx Raven Raide (talk) 00:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm against over-descriptive headings in general, and this is no exception. It's pre-empting the content. e.g. "tax cuts give the Coalition the early initiative" is debatable (and IMHO incorrect); was the Costello/Swan debate really the highlight of week 3? etc. Remove them I say. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:39, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Seats changing hands table

In the same style as the 1996-2004 'seats changing hands' tables, does anyone feel like knocking one up for this page based on this? Timeshift (talk) 16:17, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh what the heck. Timeshift (talk) 18:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

One Nation/Pauline

Per the AEC senate link, i've removed ONP due to their small number of votes and replaced with 'Pauline' which appears nearer to the bottom of the list of results in that AEC link. Any issues with this? Timeshift (talk) 04:25, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

incorrect results

Just noticed that the ABC has some contradictions between seats changing hands and seats in doubt which has made the seats changing hands table slightly incorrect, and also the AEC results are slightly out of date. I don't have the time to fix these now, so unless someone else fixes in the meantime I will fix myself in several hours time. Timeshift (talk) 10:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Next Liberal Party of Australia leadership election

What the hell is this? NN! Timeshift (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a stub about a definite upcoming event, with three refs. it's probably notable, but you can take it to WP:AFD if you like. Totnesmartin (talk) 17:19, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not in the business of AFDing by choice, however if others agree i'm happy for others to list if they wish. The bottom line is that the Liberal Party is an opposition party changing leaders. I don't recall the Beazley to Rudd transition getting it's own page, nor any others. I think in the absolute flood of users that have come storming through (i'm still surprised), a lot of users are getting carried away. Timeshift (talk) 17:21, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Non-noteworthy in the extreme, I would suggest! Why not just wait till they agree on a sucker and just list his/her name in their ongoing list of leaders? Same for the Nationals, the residual Democrats, etc, etc. Bjenks (talk) 18:37, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I say Downer, just so he can be a repeat on the list! :D Democrats? Who are they? Timeshift (talk) 19:04, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

A party leadership election doesn't deserve its own article, especially a routine post-election leadership change such as this. The info will be notable, sure, but it can go in other articles, and the title starting "Next..." is plain ridiculous. This is an encyclopedia, not a news service. JPD (talk) 19:14, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with JPD and Timeshift on this one. Some leadership changes are notable enough for an article, like the change within the Liberal Party of Canada in 2006 which took 9 months, proceeded to an election of its own and received almost bombardment media attention. This is not that - it will be a choice amongst certain men of one of their own - not even an event really. Orderinchaos 23:01, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with others. No one will care in a week's time after the leader is chosen. Simply a paragraph or section in this article is ample. Peter Ballard (talk) 00:25, 27 November 2007 (UTC) I've changed my mind. In any case, the place to leave our opinions at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Next Liberal Party of Australia leadership election, not here Peter Ballard (talk) 01:09, 27 November 2007 (UTC).

Split out separate article on election campaign

This article is way too long. I think an obvious split is to remove the campaign stuff and predictions (which most people won't care about anymore) and put it in a separate article. Comments? Peter Ballard (talk) 00:22, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

I was hoping to wait until results were finalised before beginning the task of splitting and dividing... Timeshift (talk) 03:38, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

The first half was the polling, issues and campaign, the second half was candidates and seats. I decided based on the campaign and how it's still very relevant, that I subdivide the second half. At least at this point anyway. Timeshift (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it best to keep it together until things settle down after the election (about 1 month?), then the campaign content could be put in a seperate article, as was the case with Victorian general election, 2006 and Victorian general election campaign, 2006. Peter Campbell 23:02, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

PM and Treasurer from the same state

With Rudd and Swan both being Queenslanders, I thought I’d have a look at previous cases where both PM and Treasurer were from the same state (discounting cases where the PM held the Treasury portfolio himself). I’ve discovered something I was never aware of: there were 5 previous significant cases, and in every case both men were from Victoria.

• Deakin/Turner – 1903-04 (7 months)
• Hughes/Watt – 1918-20 (2 years 3 months; Hughes originally held a NSW seat, but had moved to a Victorian seat in 1915)
• Hughes/Bruce – 1921-23 (1 year 1 month)
• Menzies/Holt – 1958-66 (7 years 2 months)
• Fraser/Lynch – 1975-77 (2 years).

There were two other minor cases: Billy McMahon made Les Bury (both from NSW) Treasurer until he moved him to Foreign Affairs 12 days later, and Ralph Willis was Treasurer for the last 11 days of the Hawke government (both Victorians).

This may be borderline OR, but the facts are readily available from the records with half an hour’s work. (And any journos reading this might write an article about it so we can then cite it.) I wonder if there’s a place for this anywhere in our Australian politics articles, and if so, where? -- JackofOz (talk) 00:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... ...I wouldn't say it's OR, but I'd call it trivia unless there's clear indication that state origins have significant ramifications on policy-making or the political discourse. Kelvinc (talk) 02:23, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

PS: oh man I'm kinda glad that the election's off the front page now because I don't know if I can stand another week of people constantly changing the PM titles and such. Kelvinc (talk) 02:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, I've also realised that Rudd/Swan will be the first time in our history that neither the PM nor the Treasurer holds either a NSW or Victorian seat. The power-base really has shifted north. -- JackofOz (talk) 02:28, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes it is interesting. But, sorry to burst your bubble, it's WP:OR and doesn't belong on Wikipedia until it gets mentioned in the WP:Reliable Sources. If you really think it's interesting there are avenues other than Wikipedia - e.g. a letter to the paper, publish it in a blog. etc. Peter Ballard (talk) 03:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Phoney election campaign

I think it is worth adding a section on the 6+ month phoney campaign and the guessing game on election dates. Quite notable given the blunder of allowing the interest rate rise to occur and the general lack of party strategy concerning this. Peter Campbell 09:12, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree but it has the high potential to contain WP:OR Timeshift (talk) 09:49, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Andren

How can we word it in the seats changing hands table that Andren didn't retire so much as he left Calare to contest the NSW Senate, remembering that he passed away after his term? It was too long winded before, but retired isn't really the right word either. Suggestions? Timeshift 15:34, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see what you're getting it. Well, in terms of the House of Representatives, he did retire. True, he didn't originally plan to retire from politics altogether, but switch to the Senate. But he abandoned his Senate campaign due to illness on 10 August, 2 months before the election was called, and for the same reason did not renominate for the Reps when the time came. By that stage, he had decided to retire from politics altogether. -- JackofOz 22:38, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Maxine McKew has claimed victory

I've just heard on radio (10am Saturday 1 December) that she's formally claimed victory. We'll have to wait for an online cite to appear. Haven't heard anything about Howard conceding. -- JackofOz 23:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Here's a cite [2]. -- JackofOz 23:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

instant runoff voting

I read at this page In Australia, the only nation with a long record of using IRV for the election of legislative bodies, IRV produces representation very similar to those produced by the plurality system, with a two party system in parliament similar to those found in many countries that use plurality. If the first preferences of Australian voters were counted on a First Past the Post basis, their elections would produce the same victors about 94% of the time. [20] and the ref link is dead. How exactly is that percentage calculated? I would have thought if plurality voting were the system (as Whitlam wanted), Labor would win more of the time as their primary vote is usually higher than the Liberal Party when you don't include the National Party? Timeshift 07:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I found the correct link, but it didn't give the 94% number anyway, so I replaced it with a "fact" TAG. I'd have thought the number'd be a bit lower. In any case, the remaining 6% (or whatever it is) is important. I don't think any major party is favoured - Labor got in quite a few this time on Greens preferences. First pass the post would make life harder for all minor parties, so I'm not surprised to hear of a major Labor or Liberal figure supporting it. Peter Ballard 08:06, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I suspect coalition MPs do prefer IRV over FPTP, but one example being Labor would totally dominate QLD. Also, before the Democrats and other social left parties came along in 1977, Labor's primary was also more or less it's 2PP figure. Timeshift 08:09, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Edits to wikipedia from coalition staffers

I came across this, and in the spirit of USA Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia, was wondering in article created with such cites as this is noteable? I wouldn't want to go about creating it if it would be sent to AfD, but based on the above precedent, I don't see why it isn't noteable. Thoughts? Timeshift 10:17, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The story you refer to was IMHO a total beatup. See my comments at Talk:Peter Costello#Media reports on government editing this article and Talk:John Howard/Archive 6#What subversive edits?. Peter Ballard 11:20, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The other thing is that the PMO and departments are government departments, not the "Liberal Party" - very different situation to the US. Only a very few edits were actually traced back to the Liberal Party itself, and there was very little pattern if any to them. Orderinchaos 21:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Important date missing

Somewhere in the grand scheme of things it needs to be mentioned that Howard advised the Governor-General to invite Rudd to form a government on 26 November.[3] 203.7.140.3 00:36, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Joint Ticket

I note that someone referenced the joint ticket. AFAIK it was in Qld and NSW, but I didn't believe it was active in Victoria. Clarification? Timeshift (talk) 02:39, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

It was active in Victoria. I'm not sure why, because they only got the unwinnable fourth and sixth spots on the ticket, and they're not in coalition at the state level. The only two states where Nationals ran independently were WA and SA. Rebecca (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok. Do you think the changes made are for the better? Timeshift (talk) 03:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Mostly fine. However, the CLP is only a NT party, and the article currently says that they run in "the territories". The Nationals don't contest seats in either Tasmania or the ACT. It'd probably be worth clarifying that sentence a little - when I first read it, I thought it was saying that the CLP were a Tasmanian party. Rebecca (talk) 04:02, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Re-attempted. Timeshift (talk) 04:09, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

My poor year 5 teacher would probably be rather disturbed to know his seat had just moved from sunny Darwin to the Apple Isle. :D Orderinchaos 04:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Issues - pulp mill?

There is no mention of the Gunns Tasmanian pulp mill in the issues section. Anyone else agree it is worthy of mention? Barrylb (talk) 09:26, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it can be said to have had much effect on the national race, since both parties supported it, and since it had bugger all effect on the Wentworth contest in particular, despite all the drama surrounding it. It could be said to have helped prop up the Green vote - particularly in Tasmania, where they surpassed a quota on their own for the first time - but you'd need sources for that, and I'm not sure you're going to find them. Rebecca (talk) 09:50, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

The mill was in the news a lot during the campaign. It was definitely an issue in the public eye. The national senate vote may have been effected by it. I'd rank it below tax cuts and I.R., but above "debates & foreign aid", which get a mention. Lester 11:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as the final results go, in the electorate of Bass, where the pulp mill would be located, there was large swing (7.5%) towards the Greens. There was plenty of commentary that the pulp mill was the reason. Barrylb (talk) 12:14, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Also in Lyons there was a former Liberal candidate Ben Quin who got about 10%. We don't know yet where his voters' preferences went. I'd agree with the others that it was a big issue in Tasmania but didn't really impact nationally, despite all the attempts to do so - much of the Greens' rise in vote was simply due to the continuing demise of the Democrats as well as some non-Labor left voters deciding Labor had gone too far right for them. None of this is sourceable, but I've heard a lot of survey results that indicate this was the case. In key NSW seats the Green vote actually declined. Orderinchaos 12:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

CDP christian party

As much as I don't want to ask this question, should they be included in the results table? They did gain more votes than the Democrats in the lower house after all... Timeshift (talk) 14:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Considering in NSW and WA they've always ranked ahead of Family First, it would make sense to do so. Adding one party isn't exactly going to clutter it. Orderinchaos 14:53, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be more inclined to remove Pauline from the Senate table and the Dems from the Reps, based on the lack of seats in the new and the previous parliament and a not particularly large share of the vote. It would be good to have some fixed criteria. JPD (talk) 15:32, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Seats in doubt but removed from table?

Who has been removing seats from the table such as those listed here? The table does not state the seats are changing hands, merely that they are in doubt, or look like changing or have changed to Labor. When an in doubt seat has been declared won by the coalition, it's removed. I think some are getting ahead of themselves. Timeshift (talk) 14:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Results table sizes

Thanks Timeshift for the footnote in the Senate table - some clarification there is a good idea. I would like to expand the "Party" column to 190px to accomodate the footnote marker, but wasn't sure whether the current width of the table was chosen for any particular reason. Will any problems be cause by making it 10px wider? JPD (talk) 15:34, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Noone has raised any objections, so I will go ahead... JPD (talk) 14:58, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Future election tag

This article or section contains information about a forthcoming or ongoing election. Content may change dramatically as the election approaches and unfolds. - until the counting of votes is complete I believe this still remains applicable and should stay until then (next week I believe). No objections? Timeshift (talk) 07:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I was going to suggest {{current election}} but it appears to redirect to {{future election}} for some reason! -- Chuq (talk) 07:20, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

There was a {{current}} tag previously removed because it was not longer appropriate according to the guidelines. I've reverted this one too because it is in the same class. Barrylb (talk) 07:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not the same as current election. It's an entirely different kettle of fish when you are talking about the makeup of a parliament. Seats and percentages change and is definately in a class of it's own and certainly not just a part of the news. That's why the template was created. Timeshift (talk) 07:46, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that these types of templates are for "those occasions that many editors (perhaps a hundred or more) edit an article on the same day, as an advisory to editors" and "this template and its closely related templates will appear on an article for perhaps a day or two, occasionally several days" as it says on Template:Current#Guidelines or "to warn the editor or reader about the great flux of edits and the fast-changing state of the article, due to the fact that current events tend to get the most attention from editors" as it says on Wikipedia:Current and future event templates. I don't think this template is necessary and should be reserved for more rapidly unfolding events. Barrylb (talk) 08:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That's not the same as {{current election}}. It's an entirely different kettle of fish when you are talking about the makeup of a parliament. Seats and percentages change and is definately in a class of it's own and certainly not just a part of the news. That's why the template was created. Timeshift (talk) 08:12, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm think we need a bit more discussion about the use of these tags. For example they were removed from all the US 2008 election articles - Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2008#Someone thinks we are all imbeciles and do we really need such a tag on an election such as Victorian general election, 2010 which is three years away? -- Barrylb (talk) 08:35, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Which of these elections have their votes being counted as we speak? I know of only one. Timeshift (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

the purpose of these tags is not to tell ppl that "this is current" - that it is current can be seen from the content of the article.

the purpose of the tags is to warn readers that, because many editors are editing in rapid succession, information changes quickly in the article.

information is not changing quickly in this article to warrant these tags. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:01, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Er, the percentages and votes are constantly being updated, so whenever we do an update, very soon it is already technically out of date. It's only through lack of updates that the percentage and to a lesser extent seats arent being updated as regularly as they could be. Timeshift (talk) 09:04, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not a big fan of these tags, but some obvious indication that the count is ongoing is a good idea. A couple of weeks after this year's NSW election, there was a German editor who didnt' seem to realise that the counting was still going on - I don't think it's that obvious to people from other systems. JPD (talk) 11:24, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Yep. And it'll all be over and gone before we know it. It's gone from 91 percent to 94 percent in the house of reps very quickly. Timeshift (talk) 11:28, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Several electorates have proceeded to final declaration status at Reps. The Senate count hasn't moved much for most of the week, which is annoying as I want to analyse the results. Orderinchaos 11:41, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Labor has just hit the lead from behind in McEwen with 96 percent of votes counted. How isn't this current, and how do these compare to elections come and gone exactly? This, is, a, current, event. I will not accept this is does not warrant the tag until counting is complete. Then remove it, go for your life. Timeshift (talk) 07:27, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Probably Monday it will be safe to do so as quite a few electorates seem to be proceeding to declaration. The only hazy bit is the Senate, as counting is proceeding very slowly (I've been monitoring it). Orderinchaos 05:06, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

As the lower house decides government, I think we should remove the (new) tag once all lower house votes have been counted and the table final. I don't support keeping it until Senate voting has been counted and completed. Timeshift (talk) 05:10, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

To all those eager to remove divisions from the seats changing hands list

McEwen delivered to Labor by 7 votes. HAH! Timeshift (talk) 07:30, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

TV coverage section

Whoever added the number of people who watched which stations, could a cite please be provided for these, or am I not seeing one in another section? Ta. Timeshift (talk) 09:19, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Liberal booth advertising image removal

That's got to be one of the weakest reasons for removal of an image ever. It's an image of a message being communicated by the government, and takes up blank white space to the right of the contents, just like in the 2004 election. There is absolutely no justification for the removal of this image. Timeshift (talk) 13:33, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - image should be reinstated - it is particularly relevant as it was snapped on the day of the Australian federal election, 2007, and represents one of several things many Australians would have seen that day. Orderinchaos 13:48, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Which image are you referring to? I was a bit concerned about the image with the 'Wall to wall Labor" advertisement. Has the car rego been painted over? I don't like manipulated images. I think it would be better to crop it so the car number plate is out of view. Then the poster will be bigger and easier to read. Lester 04:47, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

On looking at the image carefully, the car cannot be cropped without losing detail. It is a generic model and make common on Australian roads so does not identify its occupant, and I have no real issue with the blanking of the numberplate, it reduces BLP concerns (and is not central to the image anyway). At the booth I worked at we had that one and "Labor - New leadership." banners, as well as one with Garrett on it about changing everything once elected (mind you, this backfired on the Libs badly from what I heard, as the presentation made some left/working class Labor voters think it was a Labor ad and provided some kind of reassurance to them!) Orderinchaos 05:02, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I hadn't looked at the last election until now, but I think there is a massive difference between the two images. This one just appears to be a photo of a Liberal ad with no reason except that it takes up white space. On the 2004 election, the caption of the photo includes

"...Economic management has been identified by most commentators as the issue which most benefitted the incumbent government. The "L" is a reference to Latham's alleged lack of economic credentials...". This removes bias from the image and justifies its existence. With the current caption, all it says is "..."wall to wall Labor" and "economy at risk". All states and territories have been held by Labor since early 2002...". This does not explain the significance of the photo, in fact, it indicates that Labor being in power in every state is a matter that will cost the economy. In deleting this, I just noticed that the article was long and reasoned there's not any point to the photo. If it is to be like the photo used in the 2004 election, then it should explain itself in the caption, so "The government claimed Labor would be poor economic managers" or similar. As is, it is just an ad, and there to take up space, neither of which are justifiable reasons to remain on Wikipedia.

I don't mind the image itself staying, but it must be labelled better. It'd be fantastic to be as informative as the 2004 one.Vision Insider (talk) 09:31, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Restructure

I note in the last couple of days the article's main section, with the six-week campaign, has been restructured in such a way that the table of contents is now a full screen long. Please note featured article criteria (which we should always have in the back of our minds when making substantive changes) which state in part: "a system of hierarchical headings and table of contents that is substantial but not overwhelming" (my emphasis). The other aspect of this is that the campaign is not the most important part of the election - the results are, the rest is simply background, or setting the scene. Orderinchaos 11:18, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree - I think the subheadings in each "week" should be removed; if some indication of "main themes" is required, it is better to use "Week 1 - water, rubbish, whatever" format. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 21:53, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Agree. TOC now huge, the campaign really did not need breaking down any further than week by week. Is not dividing by 6 enough? Timeshift (talk) 22:51, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. One heading per paragraph is OTT. And as indicated in an earlier discussion, I don't like giving the weeks subtitles either.

HOWEVER maybe it is time to cut the campaign (and polling) to a separate article. As OrderinChaos points out, the election is over now. People will go to the article for the results, not a blow-by-blow account of the campaign and polling. Peter Ballard (talk) 01:29, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

My 2c worth, I don't think the article needs dividing further at the moment. The candidates and seats subpage got a whole lot of stuff out of the way. Timeshift (talk) 01:37, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. We don't need to change this article - just fix it up. JRG (talk) 11:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

We may find now that things that were important then are no longer so, or can be summarised more efficiently in hindsight, too. The Quarterly Essay coming out later this month may also help for a source of analysis. Orderinchaos 15:18, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Seats changing hands

Does this term only mean changing from one party to another, or could it be interpreted as from one person to another? I ask this because the seat of Parkes changed hands from John Cobb to Mark Coulton, after Cobb moved to Calare. Both Cobb and Coulton are Nationals, so there was no change of party, but there was a change of personnel (= hands). Can this be clarified some way? -- JackofOz (talk) 05:18, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I think it'd be from one party to another - else we'd have all the seats with retiring MPs in there too. Rebecca (talk) 05:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree the purpose of the table is to show only where the parties changed. I'm just concerned that the heading could be ambiguous to uninformed readers. The table does of course include some members who did retire, and their successor was from a different party. Some readers who read the table in isolation might conclude these were the only members who retired. They'd have to read the rest of the article to get the correct impression. -- JackofOz (talk) 08:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

There actually needs to be a standardisation of the seats changing hands tables from 1996 onward, as there is some inconsistencies in what is included and not included at the moment, which I will do at some point, probably once margins have been declared and I start doing some more results-adding editing. But yes, seats included are those which change parties. Parkes didn't change parties, Calare, Gwydir and Flynn did (per table). However, for obvious reasons, independent to independent would get a mention, but that's not likely. Timeshift (talk) 23:52, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Gwydir doesn't even exist any more though? (unless you mean Gwydir (2004)->Flynn (2007)) Orderinchaos 14:57, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Gwydir changed hands, per the seats changing hands table ;-) Timeshift (talk) 15:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The table currently says Gwydir NAT -> doesn't exist, Flynn NAT -> ALP. To me it seems more consistent to either leave Gwydir out, or have Flynn didn't exist -> ALP. Leaving Gwydir out would be consistent with the fact that the figures given are the notional post-redistribution, but by that logic Parramatta should be included, which would seem a bit silly. JPD (talk) 15:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Gwydir (2004)->Flynn (2007) is wrong. Gwydir is in NSW! Parramatta shouldn't be there because the ALP held the seat. Flynn is new, but after redistribution it is the National's. The ABC lists it as "ALP Gain" and there is no mention of Gwydir. I think that it should be that way. Guy0307 (talk) 21:45, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

If we say that after the redistribution, Flynn was Nationals, why don't we count Parramatta as Liberal (after redistribution, before election)? If we are not listing Parramatta, then Flynn should be described as new, not NAT, and Gwydir should stay in. JPD (talk) 14:10, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me Parramatta Lib, Flynn Nat, Gwydir left out is the best option, with a note somewhere explaining it all (the same note would need to explain Macquarie as well which was notionally ALP but previously a Lib safe seat). Orderinchaos 14:24, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

an interesting feature of wikipedia

I noticed that in the seats changing hands results table that the two newly elected Liberal members Steve Irons and Luke Simpkins due to not having any wikipedia entries (at this time) appear in red, thus the colour of the Labor Party, whereas the Liberal Party uses blue. an interesting anomaly at this time eh? petedavo (talk) 01:33, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, i'm a bit confused as to what you're referring to? :P Timeshift (talk) 01:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Geez, that was quick, Luke Simpkins and Steve Irons have now got wiki articles so they no longer apper in <colour red> red </colour red>.petedavo (talk) 02:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarification on when MPs become members

From the John Howard talk page: Timeshift (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've also just contacted the House of Reps and had a good long chat. They referred me to s.48 of the Constitution: "...each senator and member shall receive an allowance of four hundred pounds a year, to be reckoned from the day on which he takes his seat". They said the highlighted words have always, since 1901, been interpreted in this context to mean election day because that's the day on which the member was "chosen by the people"; there's no record of it ever being questioned (until now, apparently). "Chosen by the people" is relevant to s. 24 - "The House of Reps shall be composed of members directly chosen by the people ...". People elected to the Senate do not become Senators immediately, but wait till 1 July; in the absence of any such provision for members of the House of Reps, they become members immediately they are chosen, and that choice is made on, and only on, election day (or by-election day), regardless of how much time it may take for the poll to be officially declared. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

So it is once the seat is declared right? Guy0307 (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Is English your first language? Timeshift (talk) 22:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Timeshift, does it really metter? I was just editing late in the night. My Hebrew is better than my English, but I hate the Hebrew wikipedia. Guy0307 (talk) 03:30, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes. It was sarcasm, but appears true, as you seemed to have trouble grasping what was clearly explained. Which is fair enough. Timeshift (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Pointing out that editors have trouble understanding something is not only an unhelpful stating of the obvious, it also creates unnecessary animosity. Communication is a two-way street, and if the listener/reader doesn't grasp what the speaker/writer is saying, it may say as much about the speaker/writer's ability to express themself clearly, as about the listener/reader's ability to understand it. If one person doesn't get whatever I'm saying, you can be sure there are others like them. If the way I've already tried to explain my point of view is not successful, I'm always ready to try as many new ways as it takes. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

JackOfOz, your explenation was OK. As I read it through now I understand what you wrote. It was just very tired. Guy0307 (talk) 05:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Guy0307, I'm not sure exactly what you're asking. It might help to read the whole discussion at Howard's talk page. Briefly, the situation is that they become members on election day for purposes such as parliamentary salary and the official starting dates of their terms, but they can't begin operating as a member until the poll is officially declared. For example, until the poll is declared a new member can't set up their electorate office, or employ electorate staff, or use the "MP" postnominal etc. This is not because they're not a member yet, but because they're not officially declared to be a member yet. In other words, they become a member before officialdom recognises that fact - and when officialdom does recognise it, the recognition is retrospective to election day. -- JackofOz (talk) 03:00, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Just fascinating! It has probably been answered elsewhere, but does that confirm that the caretaker conventions end as of the formal swearing in of the new govt? JackofOz, could you transcribe those details over to Elections in Australia? A concise explanation there would improve that article, as would a general increase in references on that article (if/where available). --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:12, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

First Whitlam Ministry. Timeshift (talk) 03:42, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

As I understand it, there is no defined end to the caretaker period if the government is returned; all the Caretaker Conventions say is that the period ends when the result of the election is clear. If the Howard government had been returned, there would have been nothing in principle to prevent them making major new decisions even before the fifth Howard ministry had been sworn in. But when the government is defeated, the caretaker period continues until the new government is sworn in. -- JackofOz (talk) 04:36, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Jmount for the aph ref on the first sitting of the 42nd parliament. Additionally, the incoming government's decided to extend sitting weeks from 4 to 5 days with additional sittings. Can't wait for Feb 12! Timeshift (talk) 08:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

You can't be serious

I can't believe Next Australian federal election is an article... Timeshift (talk) 14:49, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I've requested comment on whether the article should be AfD'd, on the talk page. Timeshift (talk) 01:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Latest results update

It appears the Greens have had 4 votes taken off them since I updated the results earlier today. As all votes have more or less been counted and recounts are occuring in part due to inconsistencies in what is and isnt an informal vote, this could very well happen with all the parties. Just a heads up so nobody gets confused wondering why the table might have more votes than what is said on the AEC source link. It's a pity we can't just get the results table updating automatically like the AEC has :P Timeshift (talk) 03:54, 16 December 2007 (UTC)