Talk:1940 Australian federal election

Source for 28 October edit
I'm sorry, but wikipedia formatting has gotten so complicated that I have no idea how to reference anything in the proper format. The front page of the Hobart Mercury, which is helpfully archived in full images online, shows that the government formed on 28 October - "Mr Menzies New Federal Government".

http://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/25830636?browse=ndp%3Abrowse%2Ftitle%2FM%2Ftitle%2F10%2F194%2F1940%2F10%2F28%2Fpage%2F1856011%2Farticle%2F25830636

I'm surprised that this basic fact wasn't in the article already. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.20.79.244 (talk) 05:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Lang Labor and Non-Communist Labor
These are two different names for the exact same party. Why are they split into two rows on the results table? Bush shep (talk) 13:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Fixed after a bit of research. State Labor != Lang Labor. Bush shep (talk) 13:38, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Hung parliament
After all the talk last night, I expected to come here and read about how the 1940 result was a hung parliament. But not a word. I'm told the incumbent UAP/CP coalition "narrowly defeated" Labor and continued to hold power with the support of two independents. Is that a proper characterisation of the outcome? Seems to me it was a classic hung parliament, and Menzies's side was chosen as the next government because it managed to secure the support of Coles and Wilson. This doesn't mean that the result was a narow defeat for Labor; all it means is that Labor didn't get a chance to govern, at least not at that time. Comments? --  Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   18:26, 21 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree. A hung parliament it was. Frickeg (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, some interest at last. :) Thanks Frickeg.  I've made changes.  --   Jack of Oz    ... speak! ...   23:28, 27 August 2010 (UTC)