Talk:Division of Swan

Untitled
The introductory paragraph might need some reworking. Without citing census figures it seems POV to be making comment about the relative affluence of particular booths due to voting figures, which are probably based on 2004 results."It is a very diverse electorate with the suburbs of South Perth and Como in the west generally being highly affluent and Liberal-voting, and areas such as Cannington, Kewdale and Welshpool having a largely poorer population which heavily leans towards the Australian Labor Party (ALP)." With a huge amount of urban infill and renewal going on and homeswest selling up in their old areas I think there is a lot of changing demographics going on. Just as Kensington, Como and South Perth did in previous decades, now Bentley, Queens Park, Belmont, Redcliffe, Rivervale has since the 2004 election. Also the assertion that it will remain one of the most marginal electorates, may prove to be very wrong if some of the wild swings seen in the 2007 election booth by booth results do indicate changing demographics. This might be more clearly indicated in the next election results (only time will tell). "At the 2007 Federal Election a slight swing of 0.1% towards the Liberal Party meant the seat had changed hands to Liberal candidate Steve Irons. However, it will remain one of the most marginal electorates." I'm of the opinion that the introductory paragraphs I've block quoted and commented upon here seem a bit too POV for the article. petedavo (talk) 22:22, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * From an electoral perspective it is a true observation that Swan is basically two opposing safe part-seats with almost no middle-ground - much like Hasluck and to a lesser extent Stirling. Essentially the seat is marginal only because the two just about cancel each other out. At state level the territory is almost exactly covered by South Perth (safe Liberal) and Victoria Park and Belmont (both safe Labor). Demographic analysis from the 2006 census confirms this hasn't changed much since 2001, although it would be OR to add this. Truly marginal seats like the Melbourne seats of Chisholm and Isaacs really do not exist in Perth, and while the sourcing and wording needs to be improved, it's important for readers to understand the difference. Orderinchaos 22:47, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * In general agreement, I'm unsure how to best un POV or alternatively cite it so I'll leave it to others as it's not my electorate (Hasluck). Rather than get POV myself it would be interesting to see how Victoria Park and Belmont stack up at the next State Election, because in some ways i agree that relative perceptions of self affluence have more to do with freeing up the individual's voters inclinations than any one other factor.petedavo (talk) 23:04, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I doubt either will change - remember the "New North" project or the demolition of Clare Court? Balga and Lockridge are still as Labor as ever. The only area that's really changed in metro Perth is Mt Lawley, which went from Liberal to Labor over about 10 years, and Wanneroo/Landsdale, and the brand new areas which were previously large holdings, which have gone marginal from Liberal. That top area of Ascot/Belmont is Liberal and has been for a while, though. Same with Wilson down the bottom end of Vic Park (more properly marginal than Liberal at state level) - but that used to be in Clontarf which was a safe Liberal electorate. Orderinchaos 23:08, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * On a rather less serious note, that would indicate to the less logically inclined, to indicate that support for the Liberals is directly proportionate to the voters residential proximity to water (the Canning or Swan rivers). I wonders if lakes or swimming pools have any influence? On that rhetorical note I'll leave and stop abusing this talk page.petedavo (talk) 23:40, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
 * One of my mates had an interesting theory about the relationship between boats owned in an area and its Liberal vote. Anyway... Orderinchaos 23:49, 15 December 2007 (UTC)