Talk:2007 Australian federal election/Archive 1

message: Do we really need this page?
Normally, I'm in favour of having articles on events such as the next election, but most of the original research on this page is pure garbage.
As well as the mini-edit-war over this rubbish about the Greens being under threat, who added the line about Family First being a potential threat to the Liberals to rival One Nation? As they could only win one senator, despite being preferenced by practically everybody, and got roundly thrashed by the Greens on primary vote in (I believe) every single state, I'm finding this a little hard to believe.
Mark Latham will lead the ALP into the next election? Says who? He may well do so - but we shouldn't be stating this as a given, particularly considering the last week. The Liberal leadership speculation is premature, particularly as it fails to mention other likely candidates for the job.
About the only "facts" on this page that aren't likely to be disputed are the fall of the Democrats, which could be attributed to practically any political commentator around, and Howard's impending handover of the leadership. Everything else is at best disputable, and at worst, complete and utter rubbish. Ambi 09:31, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's worth keeping. I've done a major re-write to expunge the rubbish and inject a dose of rationality and NPOV into it.--Gene_poole 09:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for your rewrite, Gene poole - it's a significant improvement. I'm going to delete the bit about the Greens, though. a) It's very unlikely that the preferences deals of this election will be repeated, as it got the Labor Party and the Democrats exactly what they didn't want, so we shouldn't be stating it as if it is a likely occurrence. b) If Christine Milne could get elected, as a new senator, despite all the preference dealing against her, I don't think Bob Brown, with his much higher profile, is going to have much trouble getting re-elected. As for Kerry Nettle, who knows - any assumptions there would truly be original research. Ambi 09:51, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we should retain something about the potential impact of 2004-style preference deals on the Greens' - and indeed Family First's chances. At this stage we have no idea what imperatives may be driving party decision-making on the subject in 2007 - but I think it would be safe to assume that if the current government perceives the Greens as a threat to their  unfettered control of the Senate they will preference every which way imaginable to maximise any perceived disadvantage. --Gene_poole 09:59, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: The only thing that I'd consider mentioning - but it's probably still too early to tell - is that Family First is very unlikely to get such a good deal again, particularly from Labor. The government may try to maximise the disadvantage of the Greens, but I don't think it's quite what Labor had in mind, and it's them who led to the Greens' bizarre situation this time around. They clearly saw the deal as a means of helping Senator Collins retain her seat, rather than helping Steve Fielding beat David Risstrom in Victoria, and Jacquie Petrusma (almost) beat Christine Milne in Tasmania. I doubt Labor would be so foolish again. Ambi 10:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: Since Latham has now resigned and leadership speculation is ended, I reckon its fair to say that Beazley will lead the ALP at the next election, unless of course, he gets run over by a bus. Evolver of Borg 21:24, 4 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Beazley 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Where in the world are the minor parties 

message: 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)
thread_title: Opinions?

message: 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)
replies: text: Both of these problems have now been addressed. Joestella 19:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Back to Bennelong (and title of article) 

message: "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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Senate Majority 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Redistribution 

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

text: 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."WikiTownsvillian 10:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  no mention of Labor marginals