Jump to content

Talk:2006 Tasmanian state election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

discussion of the article

[edit]

I have added a section on each parties campaigns and pledges. I think it's important to write about what the political parties campaigned for before the election, as a sort of historical record. The information I have put in I tried to keep very neutral, although that is sometimes extremely hard so please edit things that appear to have a point of view. I have tried to reference as much as possible. Some information in the top of the article could be merged into each political parties section, perhaps new sections could be added for events that occured in the lead up to the election (such as the debate, brethren society issues etc.). These are just my ideas anyway. Kyle sb 09:10, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How did you decide what to put in the 'pledges' section for each party? They seem quite selective and I don't think they are representative of the key policy pledges. -- Barrylb 11:21, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh just pledges I could remember, still i think some of the policies could be included such as the greens policy to reduce the voting age. Kyle sb 11:41, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was hoping by adding a few people would add to them. Oh and the liberals promised cut of Land tax should be included somewhere? Kyle sb 11:42, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Constant Deleting

[edit]

I hate to say but I think your over deleting information here. Different policies in elections appeal to different people and we should include a variety of policies from all the parties. The Greens' announced they planned to reduce the voting age, for some this could be a major issue, others wouldn't care. It's okay to clean up information and I admit posting some stuff that was useless, but you shouldn't just delete everything. Kyle sb 12:46, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to mention the voting age plan, you need to mention others also. Just mentioning that policy gives it too much prominance. -- Barrylb 13:12, 16 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, today you and I have voted, the election will be decided soon. It is important, that when people read this encyclopedia article, which will be detailing a past election. They get a chance to see some of the issues the parties put forward. Because by now what we write won't influence peoples votes, then details about what the parties proposed should be added into the election campaigns. If I add some campaign pledges, those I can remember, you can add more and other users that know some can. We should use the words 'among the PARTIES policies put forward for this election include: ' to make sure these aren't given prominance. So if it is alright with you I will add some of Labors, Liberals and the Greens policies that I can remember back into the article. Kyle sb 06:37, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We must establish the methodology for what policies to mention; we cannot add them all because each party has an enormous number; I think we should choose a certain number from ones that the parties themselves have highlighted. Just adding whatever you remember or whatever is in media reports could get messy and will not result in a balanced article. I think it would be good to look at materials produced by each party (eg in adverts, websites, flyers) to see what each party has focussed on. -- Barrylb 11:59, 18 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Demise of the Greens - not

[edit]

I have updated the article to remove early speculation (as it turns out quite exaggerated) about the "demise of The Greens". There was a lot of media speculation on this which was reflected in this article. If they retain all 4 seats, as appears likely, then the only significant negative will be a 1.9% decrease in their primary vote (which is lower than the ALP's decrease). Peter C Talk! 08:15, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Early polls?

[edit]

Would it be worth adding a section on the early polls as in the South Australian legislative election, 2006 article? I have a number of old newspapers at home, and I suppose could look through the website to put 2/3 polls in this article of predicted results before the election. Well I won't do it unless the other people interested in this article agree... Kyle sb 08:41, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I would like that included. -- Barrylb 08:47, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

MPL

[edit]

Please do not remove the MPL table. All states and their respective elections (bar WA and ACT who don't have an election page, and NT who dont have any decent resolution pictures of their leaders on their parliament website) have an MPL table. The MPL holds the premier and the main opposition leader. The Greens polled nowhere near the Liberals as can be seen through the results table. Perhaps look at the other state election pages through the politics of australia template at the bottom of the page. Please do not remove. Timeshift 19:32, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The state election was not about Labor vs Liberal. It was about Labor, Liberal and the Greens. This table unfairly characterises the election as about Labor vs Liberal. Tasmania is not the same as the other states. I do not accept your demand to not remove the table. -- Barrylb 00:21, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the QLD election. Springborg is the main opposition leader, not Flegg. I would like more opinions on this. Timeshift 05:24, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Greens, while more significant in Tasmania than anywhere else, were not in a position to gain government. They remain a minor party (similar to the National Party [barring Queensland], the Democrats and Family First) and do not deserve the same level of primacy. michael talk 05:51, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It does not matter whether the Greens were in a position to gain government. The presentation of the MPL table makes it appear that the election was a 'battle' between the Liberal and Labor parties. It was not. It was a battle between Liberal, Labor and the Greens. All media coverage was presented in this way. ABC TV refused to hold a 'leaders debate' unless Peg Putt was a participant. On election night, there were three speeches presented - the leaders of Liberal, Labor and Greens each gave a speech after the results were announced. The Greens were a part of all these things and it should be the same here. -- Barrylb 01:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's what a major party leader is. Someone who may become premier. Timeshift 02:05, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but my argument is that we should not be focussing on just who may become premier, as this table does. The state election was not about the major party leaders and who would become premier. It was about all three parties. Hence we should either not have this table, or should not have just the two leaders. -- Barrylb 05:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would appreciate more opinions on this. Timeshift 05:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you can compare the Tasmanian Greens to the Democrats or Family First, or any of the mainland Green parties. None of those parties have been in serious contention of winning lower house seats, ie. influencing the formation of a government. There is the occasional chance for the Greens in NSW and Victoria to win a seat, but never in enough numbers to have a significant role in forming the new government. In comparison, the Tassie Greens have twice held the balance of power, and that was considered a likely result in the lead-up to the 2006 election. As well as this, it's worth remembering that Tasmania has proportional representation, so it isn't comparable to the mainland. And if we're going to only list those who could become Premier, I'd argue that Hidding should also have been excluded. My memory of the campaign was that no-one ever really took the chance of a Liberal majority seriously, and with the Liberals ruling out cooperation with the Greens, the only options were a Labor majority, or a Labor-Green coalition. So regardless of the make-up of Parliament, Lennon was the only potential premier. Ben Raue (Talk) 06:40, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Which Tasmanian parties in modern political history have formed government? Which havent? I think the answer is obvious... Timeshift 16:41, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Whilst the Greens are very unlikely to ever ever gain government, they do have a fair share of votes and it is obvious that some people are displeased with only the two MPLs. I have added Pegg - now it looks somewhat squashed. Do people prefer the former or the latter? Timeshift 16:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change it back. Only two parties were competing for government. The other was simply competing for the balance of power. michael talk 17:02, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not true, the Greens were competing for government also. They stood the same number of candidates as the Liberals. However this misses the point. The point is that during the election campaign it was always characterised as a three-way battle - by the media and anyone else - and we should do the same. -- Barrylb 23:23, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The "point" of an election is to gain government. Whatever the Greens influence, they are not a major party, and were not competing on the same level as one. They were competing for the balance of power. As Antony Green put it: "At the 2006 election, the Greens will again be campaigning for the balance of power, while the two major parties will be competing against each other". [1]
Certainly no one has suggested throwing up the Liberals in addition to the Nats in the 06 Queensland election, the Democrats in the 1996 Federal Election and the Country Party and DLP in past federal elections. All of these recieved a degree of prominence and over 10% of the votes at some point.
Australia, and the states, have a de facto two party system and it is best not to misguide readers by altering the page in such a way to show otherwise. The Greens certainly recieve enough attention in the rest of the article to make it obvious they are quite a powerful minor party. michael talk 01:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tasmania and the ACT do not have a de facto two party system. The Hare-Clark system employed means that although they usually will come out with a majority of seats, it's not a totality. That is an important reason to consider this as being an exception even if it is abandoned for other articles. Orderinchaos78 19:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry to short-circuit the discussion here, but since the election only determines the allocation of seats in parliament, that is the primary focus of the article and thus - by extension - the infobox summarising it. Yes, the election is effectively the sole determinant of who becomes premier. Yes, there are almost always only two contenders for that post. But this is an encyclopaedia, not the Hobart Mercury. Seats in the House of Assembly is what the election is about. Joestella 19:48, 2 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 7 external links on Tasmanian state election, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:07, 15 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_Tasmanian_state_election&oldid=1196488431"