Talk:2007 Australian federal election/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Links

Should we really have links to both the general ABC election site and Antony Green's guide? The guide is clearly linked from the general site. JPD (talk) 13:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure whether the direct Antony Green one was added before or after I put in the general ABC one, but there isn't any need for two. I'd suggest keep mine since it's a bit more general, but I'm not fussed either way - probably best to just keep the first. timgraham 13:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

When will the writs be issued?

Does anyone know when the GG will issue the writs? I have seen mention (on the ABC election news site) that it'll be the 18th, but that was someone commenting, and they provided no confirmation. —Sam Wilson (Australia) 03:25, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just added a link to the AEC's timetable to the 'Key Dates' section. This timetable seems to be wrong, which is odd. Can anyone shed any light on what's going on? I've emailed the AEC. —Sam Wilson (Australia) 09:05, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

If you know it to be wrong why did you add it to the article? WikiTownsvillian 09:07, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Because it came from a reliable source, I guess... also if it is wrong, it'll be fixed within a day and hence cease to be wrong :) Orderinchaos 11:17, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

There was a mix up apparently (see link) Rafy 11:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Old table?

Just out of curiousity, why was the old election table (the one which details the swing required, seats held, seats needed, leader rating etc) removed? There have naturally been a lot of edits today, so I am not sure who did it, but I thought that table was incredibly useful - it was right at the top of the page and summed everything up in a nutshell.

I can understand it being removed when the election is over (just), but I would support re-instating it for the time being. The new version is completly useless in terms of providing relevent info (ie it currently simply says how long JH has been in parliament, and what seat he is in.) If nobody objects, I would like to add it back in. Thoughts? GreenGopher 09:27, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Now that the election has been called, for consistency's sake, I would support keeping it there - that is unless of course nobody else agrees. Timeshift 09:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I, too, support the old table. The new pics take up too much space and are almost completely useless. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:45, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I like the old table, (though with smaller numbers) but there would be an issue with the leadership and two party preferred polling numbers, since the number differs depending on what poll you use. Is it an average? That could work. Iorek 10:44, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It would need to change constantly and the problem is one of original research as we'd need to decide which one to use or whose standard to use (Mumble's as published in Crikey would probably be the safest as it aggregates all of them, but that's original research on my part right there). I disliked the "marginal seat" section in it as it ignores context - a seat with a 2% margin may hold for structural reasons while a seat with a 10% margin which had an 8% swing last election may revert. This sort of analysis is best done on sites which Wikipedia can link to, and then we can summarise their research in the text. Orderinchaos 11:16, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

It could be an idea to use this poll... Timeshift 12:08, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that's probably the best bet, while mumble may be more accurate it would be difficult to claim it had authority. I've put the old box back in for now, although I agree the font could be a bit smaller. GreenGopher 12:23, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with OIC about the marginals; it really depends on the criteria used to determine whether it's marginal. Can we remove it from the infobox? Recurring dreams 12:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I must admit my biggest objection to it is its sheer size! Even on my 19" monitor in a high resolution it's 1/3 of a screen wide and over a screen long. Orderinchaos 13:29, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Have reduced the font size and the marginals row, but it reduced the size by only a tiny fraction. Orderinchaos 13:34, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

• Bring back the old table! It was much better and much more informative. This one tells us nothing much. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.82.53 (talk) 11:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Sky news

Did anyone else happen to watch sky news as the election was being called, especially before the event? Sky news really need to do their research better - they kept repeating that Rudd would be only the second Queensland ALP PM (Forde aside as he was caretaker only) since Andrew Fisher in... get this... 1904. 1904?! And this kept repeating. And that was just one example... Timeshift 12:30, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

The chief political correspondent from Sky will be hosting next week's debate! Recurring dreams 12:33, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes I noticed that... I don't care much for David Speers though. Timeshift 12:47, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

More inaccuracies, this time by BBC! "Mr Rudd's party needs an unprecedented swing to gain the extra 17 seats he needs for an overall majority in the country's 150-member House of Representatives."[1] How exactly did 16 change to 17, and how would a 16 or 17 seat swing be unprecedented? Timeshift 16:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Wasn't someone listing 17 as the number of seats required on this page at some point? Don't know why. I guess they've forgotten about 1996, too. Oh well... they did make Howard calling the election one of the top news stories on the BBC radio news on Sunday morning. JPD (talk) 16:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Ah yes, I was too ****ed up at the time to remember but now it's come back to me - Sky news, as well as the Fisher 1904 stuffup, said that 17 seats was required because Parramatta was now notionally Labor... perhaps the researcher is missing his right eye and looked at Australian federal election, 2007#Marginal seats? :P In response to the second part, yes now that it's been called, it will attract international media attention... I noted 1000 news.google articles related to the calling of the election! One thing I note about international media is that they seem to like reasoning the Liberal polling woes to international things like iraq, kyoto and others, rather than domestic issues. Only very recently have I begin seeing WorkChoices and other domestic issues mentioned, and even then it takes sources like BBC, and even then they still use things like Iraq. Timeshift 16:59, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

I did think of Parramatta, but didn't think reporters would be silly enough to consider Parramatta and not Macquarie. I guess that was foolish of me! JPD (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Having been out there doorknocking twice in the last three weeks in a middle-class marginal electorate, I can assure you Iraq and Kyoto are more of issues than I think anyone would seriously believe they are. They also do come up as issues in private polling. However they rank below WorkChoices and other things such as house and grocery prices. Orderinchaos 23:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

If so, then Labor will have to pull out all stops in South Australia, where it has three seats within range of a 1 per cent swing - Kingston (0.1), Wakefield (0.7) and Makin (1.0) - and two long shots in Boothby (5.4) and Sturt (6.8). Labor has never before won those two seats, and the bookies think it is unlikely to do so now.[2] I can see one thing wrong in each sentence. Why can't the media do their job right? Timeshift 19:32, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Same in WA - we have Hasluck and Stirling up for grabs on one side, Swan and Cowan on the other. However, only those that actually understand the politics know how seriously unsafe Canning is despite its seemingly high margin. It's to my mind more marginal than Hasluck or Stirling (it was on 0.38% in 2001), because it had a massive, massive swing in the 2004 election based primarily in its working class core of Gosnells/Kelmscott/Armadale. That was largely candidate-related issues in the 2004 campaign (the former member, who probably would have had a chance, dying on Christmas Eve, a new brash candidate getting endorsed then disendorsed then a recycled Burke-era minister being revived to contest the seat). This seat is probably the most vulnerable in WA to WorkChoices apart from Perth which is already strong Labor, so yeah. Orderinchaos 23:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Article name change

(cur) (last) 18:30, October 15, 2007 Aflumpire (Talk | contribs) m (moved Talk:Australian Federal Election, 2007 to Talk:2007 Australian Federal Election: moving 2007 to the front for easier reading) (undo)

(cur) (last) 18:29, October 15, 2007 Aflumpire (Talk | contribs) m (moved Talk:Australian federal election, 2007 to Talk:Australian Federal Election, 2007: capitalizing federal and election to make it look more professional) (undo)

I completely disagree. It should be Australian federal election, 2007, not 2007 Australian Federal Election or Australian Federal Election, 2007. Timeshift 09:06, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Timeshift9. Also in ensuring consistency, such a change would affect the format of ALL election articles. Consensus needs to be first established at WP:AUP Rafy 09:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Rafy and Timeshift - this change should never have been made. It's inconsistent with literally hundreds of other articles. Orderinchaos 09:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Have moved it back. A quick glance at the user's history suggests that it's safe to assume there was no chance of consensus in this move. Orderinchaos 09:54, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

ISSUES

I take issue with the following:

On 7 June in a speech promoting the government's handling of the economy, Treasurer Peter Costello recalled the notorious learner driver slogan of the 2004 election: "This [the economy] is like a highly engineered racing car and I tell you what, I wouldn't be putting an L-plate driver in the cockpit at the moment".[19] August 2007 saw a 0.25% interest rate rise to 6.5%, the fifth rise since the last election.

This is loosely disguised POV. First of all, the use of the word 'notorious'. Secondly, the point about interest rates rising under the coalition immediately following Costello's comment is pejorative. Yes, it may be fact. But there are a whole heap of facts about Labor not included here. They don't need listing, but one I think that should be on here, considering we are talking about the reasons people won't vote Liberal, some mention of the fact why they won't vote Labor. It's suggested in the first sentence of 'Issues' but not articulated. Here's a fact that belongs there if we are to have the one above. 70% of the Labor front bench is comprised of former Union officials. A sound reason for a lack of voter confidence, no doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.98.162 (talk) 04:53, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

You do realise Labor was founded by the labour movement don't you? It's like this whole 70% figure is some big surprise or secret or scandal - HELLO, they're a party created by trade unions!!! Timeshift 04:57, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh dear, someone's been driving through Sutherland Street in West Perth, it seems. The propaganda's all the same no matter where you read it, though. Orderinchaos 09:35, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do realise that Timeshift. Do you realise that a large number of Australians have no confidence in Unions, and see Union bully tactics as a threat to stable government. The fact that such a large number of the Labor front bench are Union officials is no more self-evident than interest rate rises, yet they are pointed out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.160.98.162 (talk) 10:01, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

A large number of Australians have no confidence in either unions or the government, so I'd say it's about even. In reality, despite their former occupation (or that of most former Liberal MPs as lawyers, and I'm not going to recycle any lawyer jokes to demonstrate the high esteem in which the community holds them), neither party speaks to its base any more, or its policies, or much of anything really - the so-called "mass parties" have become large professional organisations with their own inertia. That's probably why branches of both in most places are struggling to stay afloat - I remember being asked to help out a sub-branch of a party with their doorknocking one time because the average age of the branch was 72 years old and they were too frail to go outside on a 36° day (I declined, for the record). It should be noted they won the by-election in question. Orderinchaos 13:02, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Getting back to the original complaint, you've taken it out of context. In context, describing the events that have led up to the election in chronological order, "On 7 June in a speech promoting the government's handling of the economy, Treasurer Peter Costello recalled the learner driver slogan of the 2004 election: "This [the economy] is like a highly engineered racing car and I tell you what, I wouldn't be putting an L-plate driver in the cockpit at the moment".[19] August 2007 saw a 0.25% interest rate rise to 6.5%, the fifth rise since the last election. Labor used the news to argue that the Coalition could not be trusted to keep interest rates low, while Costello argued that interest rates would be higher under Labor.[20]" Is perfectly fine. Iorek 12:13, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Third graph?

What do people think of the worthyness of adding this graph? It certainly is interesting... Timeshift 06:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

It is very interesting, but I wonder whether it is the sort of analysis that would need to be considered in terms of the original research policy. JPD (talk) 11:12, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

No Pokies

There is no bias, Nick Xenophon is 'virtually certain of a seat in Canberra' according to Stateline's ABC Ian Henschke,[3], and according to Antony Green "he will win the seat".[4] 20.5 percent, 5.5 percent short of the Libs, and outpolling them in some booths last year, being judged soon by those same voters statewide? If Family First in Vic can do it on 2 percent, there is no bias including No Pokies with Greens FFP and Dems. EDIT - added the crucial bits to No Pokies. I didn't want to add overlapping information to both articles (the other being Xenophon's). Timeshift 10:27, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the solution is (a) not list the parties which might hold Balance of Power, simply say "minor parties" might; and (b) move Xenophon from "High-Profile Candidates" to "Electoral prospects: Senate", unlike the others he's actually got a chance of being elected. (Possibly Hanson should also). Peter Ballard 11:48, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Hanson stood in 2004 and got just over 4%, so I strongly doubt it. Orderinchaos 13:04, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

According to this morning's paper, Xenophon will not run under the "No Pokies" banner. So I suggest the article refer to "Independent Nick Xenophon" instead of "No Pokies". Peter Ballard 23:58, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Found an article and making changes now. Timeshift 00:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Latest revert

Please read the title of the URL Prester John - I note that you've only begun to edit this page since the last two polls came out. I can't say i'm surprised given your conflict of interest that dare not speak it's name. Timeshift 04:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's right, you keep that trap shut. I added in the "conclusion" of the poll by Gary Morgan as that title does not tell the full story. People who vote Liberal generally vote "for" things like economic freedom not "against" things like Labor voters. The suggestion that Australians are remotely concerned with the ever increasing toothless dinosaurs of the "union movement" is absurd. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 04:24, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm simply quoting the title of the URL - and look at Howard's campaign on trade union links. According to Howard, the union movement will pull the strings of the potential new PM next month. Toothless? I'd say the URL title sums it up nicely. And yes, I will keep my trap shut. But anyone who reads this knows exactly what sort of 'connection' and 'conflict of interest' i'm talking about. Timeshift 04:28, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

That's peachy. I look forward to reading it in every edit summary and in every talkpage comment. Don't let me down. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 04:31, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Please, keep it civil. As for unions driving fears, Tony Abbott seems to agree. Iorek 05:22, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Uh ok. Screaming "conflict of interest" at every chance is the height of civility. The latest attempt by Orderinchaos to extinguish the summary of the Morgan poll pushes this article into POV territory. It is unacceptable to deny the facts that Liberal supporters vote for the incumbants economic credentials. Trying to present these results as "anti-union" is blatant POV a gross misrepresentation and I shall tag it as such. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 05:29, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Including a quote by a pollster fails any notability test. If one of us were just a little more notable and were to make commentary on the election to News Ltd, would that make us quotable in an article about a federal election? I doubt it. This is his opinion, not a fact, not based on published secondary sources or research in academic journals or essays. The only people who get away with that in federal election articles are the pollies themselves, who can be quoted directly as what they say does often shape the debate. If you find such an academic source as I outlined above, I wouldn't object to it being located within the article. Orderinchaos 05:33, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I was talking to both of you; he for accusing you of POV, and you for telling him to 'keep that trap shut'. But I'm not your mother, just reminding your both of wikipedia policy, and noting that getting angry doesn't help anyone. A fear of unions is a primary thrust of the early Liberal campaign; I don't know if you've seen the ads from California, but they are here; with Abbott arguing in support of this, and the Roy Morgan report giving it as one of the reasons, I don't see how you have any ground to remove it. As you say, though, the Roy Morgan poll notes; "A large number of Liberal Party supporters continue to cite economic management as the main reason for their support." Why not something like; Roy Morgan polling in June 2007 revealed WorkChoices as the biggest reason behind the Labor vote, with a negative perception of unions and support for coalition economic management policy as the biggest reasons behind the coalition vote. ? Iorek 05:39, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a fair compromise to me. (Have now added to article) Orderinchaos 05:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

So the quote "Liberal voters afraid of union dominance", which Timeshift insists be in the article because it is a "headline" is attributable to whom? Would it be the same Gary Morgan? How is it when he says one thing you like it is acceptable, yet he says something you don't and suddenly it fails notability? Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 05:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

A few-word discussion of something like this is appropriate. A blockquoted, italicised rant by a non-notable individual who happens to get press time is not. See also WP:UNDUE Orderinchaos 05:44, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

So, not even the published results of this poll are acceptable. Let's see if the actual quotes used in the headline are. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 06:01, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

It's not that they are unacceptable, it's just that we don't need to give the entire article when we can just note the main points and link to it in the references. As it is now is fine; as you correctly point out, the article states the perceived union control of Labor is the problem. Iorek 06:05, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

I won't revert the latest change - although I think "negative opinion of unions" is more NPOV than "fear of union dominance", as while the source may have said this, we don't know what question they asked, and the former can refer to the latter while the latter is a very narrow case of the former. Others can make this particular call. Orderinchaos 06:06, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? Where is the source of your POV "negative opinion of unions". Since 4 out of 5 members of the Australian workforce choose not to form or join unions I'd say scepticism to unions is a natural "positive" inclination. Nothing negative about it at all. The source given for the Morgan poll states "fear of union dominance". Let's use the reference shall we. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 06:12, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Talk about WP:KETTLE, while crying POV PJ has said:

"People who vote Liberal generally vote "for" things like economic freedom not "against" things like Labor voters. The suggestion that Australians are remotely concerned with the ever increasing toothless dinosaurs of the "union movement" is absurd"

"Liberal supporters vote for the incumbants economic credentials"

These are clearly expressions of PJ's opinion, not discussion about the sources and the neutrality of the language

PJ is just pushing his agenda again, and using attack (with regards to POV allegations) as the best form of defence, pull your head in PJ. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 06:26, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Leader's debate

Would images taken from the ABC or Nine Network be welcome? I don't have one of the feed dropping out although I'm sure a video of some sort will appear in due course. I suppose it all comes down to whether real photos are realeased, otherwise it would be a fair use violation of some sort wouldn't it? timgraham 12:23, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

If the image specifically demonstrates something which cannot be demonstrated by any free media, and the point is actually relevant and pertinent to the article Australian federal election, 2007 and a fair use rationale can be drafted accordingly, then yes. I'd think carefully about this though as the debate (especially with five weeks left to go) is a fairly minor point in the campaign - I don't think terribly many non-interested people (i.e. the majority of voters) would have been sitting there watching all 90 minutes of it. My parents, who are both marginally swinging voters, drifted in and out. Orderinchaos 13:29, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

"Winner" of the debate

I've been observing Australian politics for a long time, but ever since we first started having leaders' debates during election campaigns, one thing I've never understood is this odd notion of who the "winner" is. What on earth does it mean? Everybody I've ever asked has given me a different answer; many people can't even articulate why they think that so-and-so won, they just think he did. Does it mean that if, say, 61% of the people surveyed said that Farfel was the winner over Bloggs, those 61% have now decided to vote for Farfel's party no matter what else happens during the rest of the campaign? Does it mean they were impressed by Farfel's arguments, but still reserve their right to choose who they will ultimately vote for in 5 weeks' time? Does it mean they were impressed by how in command Farfel seemed to be compared with Bloggs, but this does not necessarily mean they were convinced to vote for Farfel's party? How representative is the sample anyway, and does anyone out there in voter land actually care what some sample decides about who the "winner" is and who the "loser" is. Surely ordinary voters make up their own minds, and I really can't imagine anyone being influenced in their vote by media reports saying that this person or that person won a debate. So Farfel "won" the debate - but does this really have any more moment, or even as much, as the regular polls of voting intentions?

I ask these questions not to have a rant, but to wonder what we, Wikipedia, mean when we report these findings of "winners" and "losers". Are we here to just trot out uncritically whatever gets reported in the media, or are we here to report things that are actually meaningful? If we do report that Farfel "won" the debate by X%, surely we need to define what constitutes a "winner" in these circumstances. I'd welcome any enlightenment on this matter. (Oh, and I look forward to the official campaign "launches", weeks into the official campaign. What a laugh. Whatever was wrong with "policy speech"?). -- JackofOz 12:54, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

We don't need opinion and commentary thanks. Sticking to edits on the subject at hand will do quite nicely. Timeshift 12:56, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, there was some opinion in there, Timeshift, but there were fair questions too. Don't get me wrong - I have no issue with these debates in themselves. They're an excellent way to have serious political questions addressed in greater depth than we usually get via the media. But what's wrong with having the debate and leaving it at that? Let people watch them and make up their own minds, without obsessing about who won or lost it. I see that both sides are now claiming they won tonight's debate - if that's not an argument for the absurdity of the very notion of winners and losers, what is? So, I get back to my core question - why is Wikipedia reporting the "winner" and "loser", and what do we mean when we report this? -- JackofOz 13:26, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

We report what the media say, and cite where they said it. In this case, it was channel 9. (And yes, I share your opinion re "policy launches" - we've become way too American.) Orderinchaos 13:27, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Read the edits. It should be clearer now. Timeshift 13:28, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I guess I can live with that. -- JackofOz 23:22, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

Bias against the Democrats

I have found that this article is very unfair to the Australian Democrats. They have been left out of the introduction to the article, in the section on electoral prospects they are not mentioned as a chance for balance of power and in the section on notable candidates, Ruth Russell is not mentioned, despite the fact she is famous for being one of the human shields in Iraq (which was a big thing to a lot of opponents to the Iraq war).

Consider, there are 7 references to the Greens, 4 to Family First, and only 1 to the Democrats (despite the fact they are defending four senate seats).

I believe it is active discrimination, which is why I am posting here instead of editing the article, as there are definitely people ready to edit out fixes to this article. I understand it is a passionate topic, but I truly think the partisans, probably Labor and Greens, are in control of this article. 61.68.132.134 04:00, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't call Ruth Russell "famous". The sad truth (if you're a Democrat supporter) is that they've been largely ignored by the media - due in part to recent dismal performances in elections - and I think it's appropriate for Wikipedia to be reflecting the media coverage. Peter Ballard 04:19, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. No media commentators are even suggesting that the Democrats could hold the balance of power (per the ref used for the opening paras). I like Democrat ideals as much as the next left-leaning Australian, but unfortunately the page must reflect the reality, which is that all four terms are up, two are not re-contesting, state elections and polling show no recovery for the democrats, and mainstream media are ignoring them. Timeshift 04:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

So, Xenophon with 1 senate seat is "most likely" going to hold the balance of power, but the Democrats, a reasonable chance in Queensland (according to the four Morgan polls), and part of the 6th-seat lottery in all the other states bar Tasmania is a total write off. Hmm odd that. Democrats outpolled FF at the last election, and as recently as the state by-election in Albert Park (last month), Democrats got 6%, outpolling FF again. It does seem strange that FF are candidates for holding the balance of power, but not the Democrats. 61.68.132.134 05:43, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Fielding is already elected as an FFP senator. Xenophon polled 20.5 percent in the state election. That's why they are far more serious chances than the Democrats at holding the BOP. Timeshift 05:48, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If Democrats are a chance in Queensland, then show the poll and I'm sure it will be included. Peter Ballard 06:29, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2007/4227/, the only senate poll, has the Democrats consistently on 5% in QLD, how can that not be rated a good chance? 23:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

According to that both Democrats and Pauline Hanson have some chance. I agree we should change the article to reflect that. Peter Ballard 23:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

p.s. On the question of Balance of Power, isn't it far and away most likely that no single minor party will hold the balance of power? And if so, shouldn't we talk less about "balance of power", and instead simply say which minor parties have a chance of having Senators in the new parliament? Peter Ballard 06:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. Balance of power is an important concept. Timeshift 06:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree it's important, I just think no one will have it :) (though Greens are some chance). Just to clarify that we're using the term in the same way... who would you say holds the balance of power in the SA Upper House (where the numbers are, for non-Croweaters, 8 ALP, 8 Lib, 2 Family First, 2 No Pokies, 1 Greens, 1 Democrat)? I would say no one does. Family First + No Pokies share it if and when they decide to band together, but that is less important because the balance is shared rather than vested in one group. Peter Ballard 07:07, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with most of the above commentary. More coverage of the Democrats would actually be a violation of WP:UNDUE - it would be like covering the CDP's campaign in WA and NSW, as numerous reliable sources have offered analysis which suggests they are dead and gone (they're not even registered in about half the states any more as a party). Orderinchaos 11:20, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the concept of balance of power is used incorrectly in this article. The most likely outcome this election is generally agreed to be continued coalition control of the senate due to their extra gain at the last election. "Balance of Power" in the senate if it falls to the cross benches is likely to be held by any number of people (inc people willing to cross the floor like Barnaby Joyce), so saying one party is likely to hold the balance of power is misleading to readers. 23:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

The coalition has a slender majority of ONE in the senate. How on earth do you come to the conclusion that the likely outcome is a continued coalition controlled senate? No credible commentator would agree with you. Timeshift 04:26, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, unless the polls keep going at their current incredibly high levels, almost every commentator would agree with him. Taking four seats in one state between Labor/Greens/Democrats/independents is a massive ask. Nick Xenophon has made the likelihood of continuing an outright majority a lot less, but it's still very possible, even likely, that they'll have enough to block any Labor bills they choose (tied vote is defeated). Rebecca 05:44, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

I've seen a stack of articles say polls indicate the BOP will revert to the minor parties. It's very hard to believe that should the govt change, that the senate vote for the opposition/minor parties wouldn't be high enough to remove the senate majority of one. Timeshift 05:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Rebecca, I've got to disagree. Coalition has to get 3 Senate seats in EVERY state to keep control. Very unlikely. Timeshift, isn't it most likely that the minor parties will SHARE the balance of power? Assuming that's the case, we need to reword, because as it stands it says (to me) they each have a chance of holding BOP on their own. Again very unlikely, though the Greens have some chance. Peter Ballard 05:57, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

That's why I said the balance of power is likely to revert to the minor parties (on the talk page anyway) - which can mean one or more. Timeshift 06:15, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

We do need to find a better way to word it in the article, though, don't we? Currently, the sentence sounds as though the issue is which minor parties have (a share in) the balance of power, whereas the real claim being made is that the notion of balance of power will once again be relevant (i.e., the Coalition lose their control) and that certain groups are likely to have it. Apart from that, should we explicitly mention somewhere the fact that the Senate elections are for Senators starting their terms on 1 July, more than 7 months away? JPD (talk) 12:35, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Why is it unlikely the Coalition won't get 3 seats in every state? Historically they do or almost do, and last election they got 3 seats per state and 4 in QLD. It will require a huge swing for them to be out of the running for the 3rd seat in all states. The only place looking that bad for them is SA, and even there they will have enough spare quota to put them into the mix with the minor parties. Having said that, I like the new text. 203.206.162.25 01:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, Prester John removed all reference to the Senate in the lead. Timeshift 06:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

You can't tell me that slab of personal opinion had any attatched citation to it can you? Whose opinion is it? Where was it made? When was it made? Where was it published? Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 06:33, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I had already raised the first half of the sentence's structure with it's creator, Peter Ballard. The fact is that it was changed to that by him in an attempt to improve it, and you've gone and wiped out any mention of the Senate in the lead. Well done in improving wikipedia. Timeshift 06:39, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. I think it might be time for you to read wikipedia's core policies again, WP:V, and WP:OR. As someone watching this election race from the opposite side of the pacific, I am not interested in what you and peter have "created". I should be able to trace where those opinions have been sourced from, where and when they were made. You have already added in two extra references. If this claim is factual then there should be no trouble finding a source for it, as wiki core policy demands. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 06:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

How about reading the sleuth of refs in the Senate section that back up these claims? Timeshift 06:51, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

The references (predicting the Coalition will lose control of the Senate) are all there in the "Senate" section. Here they are again: [5] [6] [7] [8]. According to WP:LEAD, the Lead section does not necessarily need references, though it's a matter of judgement. As I said to Timeshift, feel free to improve my wording - and/or add an appropriate reference. Peter Ballard 06:54, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I only got to the first one and keeled over. An "online activist group" which the SMH even has doubts about being bi-partisan? Are you for real? Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 07:01, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

First, that's one ref, second, it's not up to you to question the legitimacy of GetUp polling. Timeshift 07:04, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I've added the senate mention back in to the lead in the most non-controversial way possible, and does not need refs per WP:LEAD. But watch wikipedia get "improved" by Prester by way of revert, i'm sure. Timeshift 07:08, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

No, I don't have time to pick apart this POV garbage article. You can have your GetUp polling. For the record none of the other three sources claim what you say they do.this one says the opposite and says it is "extremely unlikely", this one just asks the question and doesn't make a prediction at all, and last but not least this is just a table of results which must have taken some serious original research to arrive at your tortured conclusion. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 07:20, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Tortured conclusion? The Senate has not had a majority since 1980, and the coalition got a majority of 1 at the 2004 election. Polls are indicating a nationwide 2PP swing of 10 percent. Are you seriously claiming that it's more likely that the coalition will retain a senate majority after this election than for it to revert to a balance of power situation? Care to cite that? Timeshift 07:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh come on now.

this one says the opposite and says it is "extremely unlikely" - wrong. The lead paragraph says, "The Coalition is likely to lose control of the Senate, while Labor is just as unlikely to win it".

this one just asks the question and doesn't make a prediction at all - wrong. One analyst says, "That means that any government, Labor or Liberal, will have an interesting mix of parties and possibly independents to negotiate with to secure legislation through the Senate,"

this is just a table of results which must have taken some serious original research to arrive at your tortured conclusion - only if you call it "tortured" to comprehend that the Coalition must win 3 seats in every state.

Besides, I bet I could find lots of others. Still, I'm willing to modify it if you can produce references predicting a major party will control the Senate. Peter Ballard 07:28, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I do note however that the Lead does not make a prediction about the House of Reps. So for consistency it shouldn't make Senate predictions. However the lead should say something about the Senate. Peter Ballard 07:43, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

But it does. The lead indicates to all who read that the house may be coalition or labor, with the senate likely bop, but some doubt left in the sentence structure for coalition control. Timeshift 07:46, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Despite Timeshifts red herring attempt it is not I attempting to include poorly referenced material into a lead paragraph of a fairly important article. Peter, if you can look past the headline of your age reference and make it all the way to page 2 you will see this quote; "If the Greens pick up seats in NSW, Victoria and Western Australia (as well as Tasmania), a Labor-Green bloc would get legislation through. But on most projections, that's unlikely, and the casting votes of Mr Xenophon or Senator Fielding would be needed to secure any legislation's passage". Sort of the opposite of what you are citing. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 07:52, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

and the casting votes of Mr Xenophon or Senator Fielding would be needed to secure any legislation's passage - and that equates to coalition control, how? "Sort of the opposite"? Get with the program. Timeshift 07:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Timeshift, with all due respect, I don't think you understand what is going on. I removed an unreferenced phrase here which claimed the coalition would lose control of the senate. You and peter then threw up one dubious "online activist poll" and three articles that do not support that text. I did not claim anything about the coalition gaining control. You do see that don't you? Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 08:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Umm... the articles were added as references for the claim that "the coalition would lose control" (note: not that a Labor-Green bloc would have control). You suggested the articles said "sort of the opposite", i.e., that the Coalition would keep control. Actually, the articles do all, to a greater or lesser extent, predict a Senate not controlled by either party. I don't know whether that quite counts as "widely predicted", and the predictions themselves will possibly change over the next few weeks, but I think you are quite missing the point that Timeshift has been making. JPD (talk) 10:36, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. As long as we take care with what claims we make, and having read them, there is no reason to suggest that the sources imply continued Coalition control of the senate - it is only by one seat at the present. More than likely is a return to the usual state of affairs, but with a more complex array in the middle where either Labor or Liberal can team up with one or a number of other entities to pass or reject bills. Orderinchaos 10:57, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I have more important things to do than to find articles that show senate instead of general or house predictions. You have fun in your fantasy land believing that the coalition has a chance of maintaining senate control. Timeshift 08:09, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Refs

Those linking particularly long URLs as refs, please use the Cite news template or some other formatting (eg [url Title], author, date, paper. Retrieved date) - until yesterday the links in the refs section were going way off the screen. Orderinchaos 21:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Crikey vids

• Crikey election 07: Are you ready?
• Crikey election 07: week 1
• Crikey election 07: week 2
• Crikey election 07: halfway mark
• Crikey election 07: week 4

Enjoy! Timeshift 06:55, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

Pseudo progressive coalition

Do you think it is worthy to make a mention of this: http://www.smh.com.au/news/federal-election-2007/trio-gang-up-to-beat-senate-majority/2007/10/27/1192941400143.html

The Greens, Labor and The Democrats have appeared together in a video advertisement organised by GetUp! promoting the importance of a "fair senate" acting as a house of review.

--Waynekruse 08:40, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

A coalition implies they would govern together, which is not the case here - so be careful with the wording. It does deserve a mention under the Senate majority section, but will likely be a very minor part of the overall campaign. Orderinchaos 10:23, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

Week 2

I would suggest that the neutrality of the "Week 2" summary is tenuous in terms of POV. Cyril Washbrook 04:56, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I would like to add that it's all cited, and the only controversial bits are contained in "". Timeshift 05:05, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

This dispute isn't about accuracy of citation - it's about the neutrality of the section. The two issues are entirely different, as Wikipedia policy recognises. The entire section was cited from a single source and does not justify itself as representing a sufficiently objective overview of the week. I've made edits to include basic information about the interest rates dispute, removed some copy-pasted sections and rearranged the sources to present a clearer layout of content. I've left the POV tag there for the moment. Cyril Washbrook 05:23, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is not a sufficient overview of the week - there was nothing there and week 2 was already gone! I added that and expected others to add other various noteabilities of the week. Timeshift 05:35, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

As a vague liberal supporter, I would suggest that while a few words could be tweaked to make it a bit more NPOV, the week undoubtably belonged to Labor. The debate fallout took over the news Monday, interest rates dominated the remainder of the week and Turnball was the story of the weekend, especially the sunday papers. I think a line about Joe Mcdonald is warrented, as that was an arguable hit for the libs (and gained national attention), but that's really about all. GreenGopher 05:53, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

(Totally personal observation here in response to the above but) Where it mattered (WA in this case) I think the McDonald news is more likely to have been positive for Labor - most people here have an opinion on the guy, including the local Labor Party who first threatened him then stood by and let his workers get fined for holding up their railway project. If they dumped Reynolds too, you'd probably see the difference in the polls. Orderinchaos 08:47, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it's either way. People who are likely to change their vote over unions most likely already vote Liberal. Even today the media kept saying people aren't being affected by it. Continuing to bag the unions, however, only reminds people about WorkChoices. Timeshift 08:52, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

If anyone plans to write about the Costello v Swan worm and who scored higher and in what areas, see this as one of your references. Timeshift 03:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Let's play a game - spot the inconsistencies...

"Labor's primary vote was up three to 51 percent, with the Liberals down two to 34 percent. Rudd extended his lead by two percent to 50 percent, with Howard down by two percent to 37 percent." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.121.161 (talk) 09:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Factual innacuracies - underlying inflation

"...underlying inflation of 3% (inflation when the largest increases and decreases are removed)..."

Underlying inflation is not "inflation when the largest increases and decreases are removed", it is inflation not accounting for volatile prices (eg. fuel).

This highlights a broader and more general concern with wikipedia on the whole that, when anyone can edit, factual errors will be prevalent.

And correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't it 3.9%? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.165.121.161 (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The measure of underlying inflation which the RBA looks at is the trimmed mean. "It involves the calculation of the mean after discarding given parts of a probability distribution or sample at the high and low end, and typically discarding an equal amount of both." 58.106.28.166 12:21, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

That's interesting - you get a lot of different definitions of different things from different sources. This one came from the website of parliament house:

"Treasury's underlying rate is calculated by removing from the CPI those items whose prices are directly influenced by highly volatile, seasonal or policy factors."

58.169.193.41 05:27, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

... and ignores housing prices, presumably. Peter Ballard 12:32, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Acutally it doesn't, but interestingly enough it does include mortgage interest rates, due to the fact that they're directly influenced by policy factors. For more information: http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/mesi/features/underly.htm

It has a table on items not included in the underlying cpi basket. It's also where I got that quote.

58.169.193.41 05:42, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Two seat Senate majority

Timeshift, I respond to your comment on my user page here, since this is the most appopriate place for it.

There are 39 government Senators. There are 37 non-government Senators. That's a two seat majority.

You say that half is not a majority. That is not my claim. 39-37 is two better than half. 38-37 would be one better than half. See the difference?

The personalities involved are utterly irrelevant. Barnaby Joyce is a member of a govt party. Steve Fielding is a member of a non-govt party.

Dlw22 14:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but it doesn't work like that, it is NOT a two seat majority. The coalition's 39 of 76 senate seats is a one seat majority. For example, as the Government holds only a one-seat majority.[9]... how many more articles do you want me to cite? Your edits to the lead stating the coalition has a two seat majority in the senate will continue to be reverted by myself and others. Timeshift 14:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

A mathematically illiterate journalist is hardly an authoritative source. I shall instead cite a dictionary definition.

wikt:Majority

2. The difference between the winning vote and the rest of the votes

The winner with 53% had a 6% majority over the loser with 47%.

Now I shall change the article to present the mathematically and factually correct definition of majority.

Dlw22 14:29, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Clerk of the Senate Harry Evans, who has spent the past 16 years overseeing the Upper House... "We have to remember it's only a majority of one," he said.[10] You lose. Timeshift 14:40, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that the term isn't used consistently, and most dictionaries don't include any definition for this use of the word. Dlw22's usage (ie. 2-seat majority) is consistent with most uses outside Australia and even when describing the House of Reps. It would be silly for our article to describe the Senate majority as 1 seat and the Reps majority as 24 seats. JPD (talk) 14:37, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Democrats believe the race between the popular and wealthy Mark Warner and Gilmore will allow them to expand their one-seat U.S. Senate majority.[11] But that isn't the point, the point is what is correct, per above. Timeshift 14:43, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Timeshift, all you have proved is that the notion of a "one seat majority" is a widely believed factoid. But wikipedia should be the place for correcting these myths, not perpetuating them. Dlw22 14:44, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm using WP:IAR to call you an idiot for thinking you know better than the 16-years Clerk of the Senate. I also refer you to Majority government, which in this and not a math context shows how, as 39, not 38 votes can pass legislation, it is indeed a one-seat majority. Not to mention that what you have just said is proposing WP:OR as you cannot cite anything except a dictionary meaning. Timeshift 14:46, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

It is not original research when my change accords with dictionary definition. Calling it a "one seat majority" is fine for casual use (like with Mr Evans). Encyclopedias should strive to do better than that. Dlw22 14:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, but applying the dictionary meaning to a word in a context where there are citations to show otherwise, is WP:OR. Timeshift 14:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Please don't call people idiots or invoke IAR falsely - calling somebody an idiot doesn't help you to "improve or maintain Wikipedia". I think we should just be going by what is verifiable with reliable sources. If the sources are contradictory, then maybe we should clarify what it means or as JPD suggested below, avoid using the term in favour of something else. I just had a quick look on Google, though, and it seems that "one seat majority" is how it is most commonly described and that is what I personally would lean towards, but I would like to hear what OIC thinks. Sarah 18:56, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Everyone seems to have forgotten about the poor old president :) That's why it's a one seat majority and not two - it's not simply mathematics, when they vote, there is 75 voters (not the full 76), and votes are won 38-37. If Barnaby changes his mind, usually that becomes 37-38. Orderinchaos 20:06, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I didn't forget, I already said it :P Timeshift 20:17, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Out of the (real) dictionary: "the greater part or number; the number larger than half the total". Which is 1.

58.169.160.159 11:20, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't care what the dictionary says, and neither do the administrators. You should understand that not all dictionary meanings are an absolute if you are not taking it in context. The context is the senate, and we have a 16-year clerk of the senate cited above as saying a 1-seat majority. Discussion over. Timeshift 15:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's nothing to do with who knows best - the problem is that the idea of an x-seat majority is to some extent ambiguous. It makes just as much sense for it to refer to the number of seats that need to be lost to lose a majority as to refer to the difference (which is twice as much), and unforunately, people, both journalists and Clerks of the Senate, don't seem to care about any consistency. JPD (talk) 14:52, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

I did a search for two seat senate majority, after doing my one seat senate majority google search, and surprise, no results. It's not up to us to change what has been shown to be otherwise, no matter what your opinion on how dictionarily correct it may sound/be/feel/taste. Timeshift 15:01, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Well, it wouldn't completely be OR to say two-seat majority, as there are at least 3 sources for this, as well. However, nothing has "been shown", it has been simply quoted. This isn't a matter of what is true/incorrect, it is a matter of usage of certain terms. I would say that since the phrase "x-seat majority" can mean more than one thing, it might be better to avoid it all together, in favour of something which is not likely to be misunderstood. At the very least, we shouldn't use the two different meanings in the one article without being more clear about it. JPD (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Actually, 38 votes CAN pass legislation. Since there are only 37 non-government Senators to block legislation. I know that's not what you meant; but I shall return to this point.

Your rebuttal to my mathematics rests on the strawman argument that I'm claiming that 38 seats out of 76 consitutes a majority. It does not and that is not my claim.

In a 76-seat Senate where every member has a vote, 39 is the smallest possible majority. But that does not automatically make it a one seat majority. It's a two seat majority. One seat majorities are not possible in an even numbered chamber where every member votes.

But by comparing the smallest possible majority in an even-sized chamber to the smallest possible majority in an odd-sized chamber - the former two seats, the latter one - it is easy to see why they are not the same and should not be treated as such.

In a 39-37 Senate, a government member could be absent or abstain and the government would still be assured of passing legislation 38-37. But from a stating point of 38-37 in a 75 seat chamber, the government would have no such luxury.

That's the difference between a two seat majority and a one seat majority.

Dlw22 15:14, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Find me one single source out there stating that the Senate has a two seat majority for the coalition. Until then, again, it is WP:OR simply to rely on mathematical definition of a word without considering the context it is in. If you were right, i'm sure the 16 year Clerk of the Senate would have agreed with you instead of me. Also, if they lose one seat, they no longer control the senate, thus a one seat majority. They have 39 members in the senate, and one is the speaker and he is a Liberal. So they have 38 members. Labor/Green/Dem/FFP is 37 members. Should one govt MP cross the floor, it is 37-38. That is why they were able to pass VSU with Fielding's support when Joyce crossed the floor. One day you'll learn... anywho, time for bed. Timeshift 15:20, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

[12] [13] [14] and many blogs. Not the best sources, but not nothing. (I also don't think OR is meant to apply to a the dispute about definitions, not the facts of a particular case.)

But I think Timeshift has hit the nail on the head. It is the presence of the Speaker that leads to the "one-seat" description. Before the speaker is chosen, "two seat" would be appropriate. So, should the HoR majority be described as 23 seats? Most sources (speaking of the election, rather than the current state of the House) say 24. (Most references to 12 are about the 1998 election.) JPD (talk) 15:35, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

The President of the Senate retains their voting rights (unlike the speaker of the house). 58.106.28.166 15:58, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

"Also, if they lose one seat, they no longer control the senate, thus a one seat majority." Actually, that's incorrect. I have dealt with this. If the Coalition loses a Senator, they still control the Senate. 38-37. It's only when they lose a Senator and the opposition gains a Senator that they lose their majority. So two things have to take place to erase a two seat majority. (It's true that at an election one implies the other, but the detail of a fixed sized chamber does not alter basic mathematics.)

As correctly pointed out above, the President of the Senate has a deliberative vote. If the entire basis of your "one seat majority" argument comes down to the fallacy that the President has only a casting vote, then you are demonstrably wrong.

Dlw22 16:19, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Somehow I managed to completely miss this when I made my own argument. Based on cited reliable sources, we can say that it is in fact 38-37 from a voting point of view. Media at the exact time it was determined Barnaby had got that seat, at least two academic papers I've read since talking about, as pointed out the clerk of the senate, and numerous media since can't *all* have got it wrong and I feel we're wandering into original research territory here to assert simple mathematics over the weight of *all* these sources. Fact is, and this is undisputed, if Barnaby votes against something, the proposal dies. This has happened a few times before. The only way that has been thwarted before is if Steve Fielding votes for it in his place. And that much can be reliably sourced, you just have to look in media refs for any time it's come down to a vote, especially with the "will he won't he" posturing the media tend to indulge in beforehand. Orderinchaos 20:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

as pointed out the clerk of the senate, and numerous media since can't *all* have got it wrong and I feel we're wandering into original research territory here to assert simple mathematics over the weight of *all* these sources - thankyou OIC. Timeshift 20:16, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

OIC, do we really have any sources that it is 38-37 from a voting point of view? The Prime Minister says [15]: "Well look, I don’t want to add anything to what I’ve said. I think everybody understands the arithmetic. It’s 39-37. There’s certainly 37 against it, so if somebody crosses the floor it makes it 38-38. It’s dead then. We could have one abstention and make it 38-37. If we had two abstentions it would be 37-37, so we’d lose it. That's the arithmetic."

Everything you have said after "this is undisputed" is indeed undisputed, but the question is whether this is clearly/accurately described by the phrase "one-seat majority". We do have plenty of reliable sources for the "one-seat majority" phrase, but we also have the terminology being used completely differently when talking about the Reps in just as many reliable sources. In fact, the position of the US Senate (51-49) is quite frequently described as both a one-seat and a two-seat majority. It is not original research to recognise that a phrase is ambiguous, or at least unclear, and hence decide to avoid it and using wording that is undisputed. JPD (talk) 10:49, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

My point stood purely against changing one- to two-, not removing one- (which I agree can be ambiguous). Orderinchaos 11:15, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

1 Nov newspoll

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/files/newspoll-1nov.pdf - from what I gather, they've combined their last two polls. Timeshift 21:28, 31 October 2007 (UTC)

"Viral videos"

I really do wonder how relevant this is... what are admins opinions on the "viral video" section the anon IP added which I reverted? Timeshift 20:35, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with you - it doesn't seem terribly encyclopaedic. External links has a few things to say also - they're definitely not contraband though, but without more reliable sources giving them airtime (I've only seen one of them on one news site in an opinion piece on a quick look around) it's a very marginal part of the campaign. Orderinchaos 20:45, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

However, do you agree with the addition of the link to the full debate with the worm? The same anon removed the link which i've re-added. He says it is copyright, however as wikipedia isn't hosting it, simply providing a link to it, I don't see how it is an issue. Timeshift 21:03, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

The question would be whether it adds to the article, I'd say if it's easily searchable then no, but if it isn't then yes (haven't checked the source/hosting location). Keep in mind what EL has to say about persistency of links though. Orderinchaos 21:17, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

I added the link directly underneath the leaders' debate heading. I'd say it wouldn't easily be found on the internet. And does it add to the article, in particular the leaders' debate section? Absolutely. Timeshift 21:22, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Images of Leaders

In the interest of consensus, do people believe it is better to have different photos of the leaders on this page as opposed to their individual pages? The photo I came across of Howard is very good but doesn't really fit on this page due to it's horiztontality (sic), and besides I think different photos on this and their individual pages are good anyway. In terms of the license, both Howard images use the same license, and both Rudd images use the same license, so that is a non-issue. Thoughts? Timeshift 01:03, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

I prefer consistency where achievable and reasonable. --Brendan [ contribs ] 08:00, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Why must you play these games Brendan? Howard has an image in his infobox, and one on this page. Rudd has the same on both. That is unbalanced, as was the other way before the new Howard picture. What is balanced is two each. Before you revert, how about seeing what others think, as to form consensus, rather than exclude material from wikipedia which you seem to be able to consider yourself to deem whatever you believe is bad to go. Wikipedia is more than you. Timeshift 08:07, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Listed at AN/I - admins have ruled that my image is fine however they stayed out of the argument last time, so by default that goes in my favour. As for consensus, two of each, balanced, was there for a period of time, accepted implicitly by the community, and you have come along again to remove good faith image additions which nobody is kicking up a fuss about, at all, to any extent, whatsoever, except you. Your objections and nobody elses, should rule consensus in my favour by default. I leave it up to the admins to judge and hopefully come to some sort of decision. Timeshift 08:16, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Timeshift, I wish you wouldn't mischaracterise a stylistic disagreement as "playing games" or making Edit Summaries declaring that Wikipedia is not mine "to run". Please don't fall into the trap of doing that to people with whom you have differences over content. I do not belittle your views or contributions. I complimented you on your talkpage when you found a better image for the Howard bio. I would appreciate the same respect in return. Please consider BigHaz's comments on your talkpage, that he made during our last stylistic difference of view. Please recall Sarah's comments about consensus. I simply restored an image that had longstanding implied consensus. I don't see what an ANI page about a different image on a different article has to do with this discussion. I don't understand what you mean by "unbalanced" in any relevant (ie. substantive or Wikipedia policy) sense. Do you agree with me that we're talking style here? In which case, please hold off on reverting. I agree we should talk here and put it to the community which image they prefer. Admins are not there to adjudicate on style. You should be seeking consensus from the Wiki community, not entreating admins to make judicial opinions (which they generally will not do unless content violates policy). --Brendan [ contribs ] 08:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Both Rudd images are perfectly acceptable, so I don't mind which is used. However, the reasoning behind changing it for balance is a little odd. If the article were to have more than one picture of a leader and only one of another, I might see a point, but because they have the same image on two pages is not a valid argument for imbalance. Neither is "your objections and nobody elses, should rule consensus in my favour by default". Timeshift, don't sour your excellent and tireless contributions to this article over a completely pointless change of image. If you really feel it needs to be changed, put both on here, and poll. Iorek 09:03, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I've edited the image from the Howard BLP to be identically proportioned to the Rudd picture, and have added it as the Howard picture here. Now both are the same size and their images on this article match the respective BLP image for each. Feedback and further discussion is welcomed. --Brendan [ contribs ] 09:24, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm surprised this issue hasn't been brought up; isn't it a problem that this article is about an event in late 2007 and yet that photo of Howard is almost five years old... given that Howard's retirement and age have been a major issue in this election doesn't that make the photo inappropriate for this page while still very appropriate for the BLP? and on the same general issue, the Howard-Costello transition plan isn't even mentioned in this article! I don't have time to do it myself but if someone does it's a bit of a glaring omission. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 13:50, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is a matter of style, and I don't see how balance is an issue, but there is absolutely no reason why the image here should be the same as in the bio infobox. As WikiTownvillian points out, it would be quite sensible to care about the date of the image on this page, but not the other. Apart from that, why are we talking about a BLP? It's a biographical article, and this issue has nothing to do with the fact that the subject is a living person, let alone our BLP policy. JPD (talk) 15:49, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Well i'm glad that, yet again, people are favouring my choice over Brendan's choice. Now we just need to rectify it. Timeshift 20:37, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

There are two issues here. Blurring them achieves confusion not consensus. The first is that, so far, there is general ambivalence in the above comments about which Rudd image should be used (recognising that both were taken the same time, so picture "age" is not an issue). The second is that there is some question over which Howard image should be used, on the basis that the prior one was more recent and therefore "more" relevant to this article. I don't share that concern. The "age difference" between the two Howard images is trivial in material effect and the updated BLP is stylistically a better picture in my view (which I gather is why Timeshift added it there and I commended him for it). I support Iorek's suggestion above, "If you really feel [the Rudd image] needs to be changed, put both on here, and poll." --Brendan [ contribs ] 05:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

If I could butt in here, I would vote for either the first Howard and first Rudd (as in, the ones on the left), or the second Howard and second Rudd, simply for balance. I don't think there's any clear difference in terms of quality or relevance, and uniformity with another article should not be an issue. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 09:18, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree. It's either the first and third, or second and fourth. They are proportionally similar. And the second Howard image is from 5 years ago. Not to mention that if Howard has seperate images for his own page and this page, so should Rudd to achieve balance. The second and fourth images should be the lead images on their individual pages, with the first and third images used for the 2007 election page. Timeshift 00:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Timeshift, both your and my differing arguments for "balance" of images within and between the articles have pretty much been rejected by most other editors here so far, so there's not much consensus value to be gained by either of us reiterating those views in a more insistent fashion. NPOV will not be compromised by any of these images, so it is a stylistic matter. A vote is underway. By all means add new information to the debate but please also relax and let the vote happen. WikiTownsvillian, how is a picture taken of "Howard in America in 2006" stylistically better for this article than a "Howard in America 2003" picture? Both are Howard, neither were taken during the election campaign or year, and the differences in his appearance are marginal (a bit more grey hair, although the US pic is small, so not the clearest). --Brendan [ contribs ] 01:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

RfC : Which images preferred

Which images do you prefer for this article?

User:	Howard - May'06	Howard - Feb'03	Rudd - May'07	Rudd - May'07
Timeshift	Y	N (is on JH)	Y	N (is on KR)
WikiTownsvillian	Y	N(due to age of photo)	Y	Y
Orderinchaos	Y	N (age of photo, also looking at odd angle, and Australian flag in background unhelpful for comparison with an opposition leader)	Y (non-committal - if forced to choose, the other is better)	Y
JRG	Y	N (too old)	N (image is not as clear as the other one, sorry)	Y
Iorek	?	Y	?	Y
Brendan	N (is the smallest, least quality, cluttered by foreground objects, subject is at distance, no more relevant to the election campaign or 2007 than the others, has a "red-faced leering" look about it unbecoming of a decent encyclopedic picture)	Y	N (low clarity/contrast and "squinty-eyed" look unbecoming of a decent encylopedic picture)	Y
Twenty Years	Y(despite the stuff in foreground, its the best weve got)	N(too dated)	Y (whilst the image has been fixed up, this is my second pref)	Y(first pref)
Skyring	N(All these US-sourced images suck. Something about the colours is wrong, and it just doesn't look like JH.)	Y(Captures his earnest nature well.)	Y(He looks happy, as he has done for most of the campaign.)	N(He looks like he's chewing on a bit of earwax.)
Total people supporting:	5	3	5	6

Poll format disagreement

Brendan, this is just silly, I created the poll and in doing so I left a brief succinct comment to clarify my vote, the discussion and point of contention is so minor that it is almost fascicle, but you and timeshift have been asking others to give their opinion and so I did so (among others). You then asked that a poll be set up, note that you could have created one yourself without too much work. Now that I created the poll at your request could you please not change the way in which I and others have chosen to vote, it does not change the weight of an editor's vote, it only clarifies why they have voted the way they have, which might be considered important to those of us who have voted. The point about the images is minor, but your editing other's comments (and breaching the 3RR in doing so) would be over the top even in a more serious disagreement. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 03:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

It is silly that here is a whole talkpage here to discuss the reasons for our choices, and we have indeed done so already, yet you and Timeshift prefer to push the point into the voting table rather than continuing to maturely explore those reasons in detailed discussion above or below the poll. The fact that you created the poll table is immaterial. I don't know what you're getting at with that, other than to do the "silly thing" of sledging me for not being the one who created it. Like, que? But have it your way -- I've now added my comments to the poll table too. --Brendan [ contribs ] 03:58, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The distortion of the table simply exposes you werent genuine in your reasons for not wanting comments there. But then again, not being genuine isn't anything new for you. Timeshift 04:10, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Please explain this wonderful piece of misinterpretive handwaving. You just can't resist attacking other editors, can you? I wanted comments to be left out of there so that the poll table was not used as a soapbox. But as you and WikiTownsvillian are insistent upon making it so, then drop the aggression and let it be so. Unless you now prefer the rational logical suggestion I made to put commentary in the talkpage rather than in the vote table. Your problem is that unless you can have it exactly your way, you throw a tantrum, dash off to whine fruitlessly on the ANI page, and then forum-shop to incite support for your idiosyncracy. Being 'genuine' is about building consensus and treating others at least civilly in good faith. But by all means, ignore that and stick to sledging me, instead of heeding the comments of others about souring your reputation here. No, really, it's makes Wikipedia so much better and consensus building so much easier... --Brendan [ contribs ] 05:41, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Guys, this is about a fricking image. A picture. A bitmap containing a few thousand dots. Can't we all just agree to disagree and move on? Orderinchaos 13:16, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd be very happy for Timeshift to agree to disagree and then move on. The problem is, though, that he is determined to guard his edits against all comers, to insist that his content additions are better than everyone else's, and to snap snidely at anyone who dares to take a different view. Polite requests from other users (for example Sarah, BigHaz, Iorek), to be more conscious of his oversensitivity, are on here, on his talkpage and on the various ANI topics he fruitlessly and incorrectly initiates when he doesn't immediately get his way. Until that behaviour changes, and until he learns to discuss instead of hitting repeatedly hitting revert, conflict will remain. Case in point -- he has now undone an image clean-up that I performed on the Rudd picture, for what benefit to the ecnyclopedia? And for what possible purpose (other than to ensure his name is prominent on the Edit history for that resource)? It's just not reasonable. --Brendan [ contribs ] 15:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict with Timeshift's edit) wow, you're talking to me about maturity? Timeshift's clarifications are three (small) words each and mine is five words, by adding whole paragraphs you're just being antagonistic. I'm not going to bite though because I couldn't care less. :) WikiTownsvillian 04:14, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hehe, "I'm not going to bite, because I just did". The number of words are now more significant than your earlier principle that editors should be able to comment as they wish? Funny that. Either it is acceptable to include commentary on our votes within the polling table or it is not. Or are you saying it should be your way or the highway? That after having insisted comments be accepted, it should be up to you and Timeshift to regulate the size of everyone's comments there? No, you're absolutely right -- that's real mature. Good on you lads, well done. --Brendan [ contribs ] 04:31, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see why we need a poll rather than discussion. JPD (talk) 10:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole thing is facile and ridiculous in my view. Why there is a cut and thrust argument about what image appears in the corner of a page - something that matters little to by far the majority of readers - is completely beyond me. Orderinchaos 13:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't care less about the images, I very much regret getting involved, not because of anything of substance to the article but because of the way Brendan has behaved in this discussion, towards myself in particular as an independent party who came in to lend a hand where requested. The insignificance of the point of debate just makes it all more sad. WikiTownsvillian 14:07, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting characterisation, WikiTownsvillian/Alex. "Sad", "regret", "insignificance"? You don't sound a very happy chappy. And of course, it's "all my fault" eh? A cynic would question your independence in light of the discussion between you and Timeshift on your talkpages. I guess that explains your inability to equally criticise Timeshift for his lack of understanding of WP:CON, his overactive reverting that started all this, and his snide reparte whenever someone suggests a view not to his liking. Thankfully there are more objective editors who haven't missed it. Please keep in mind: it takes at least two to tango. --Brendan [ contribs ] 15:48, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not happy Brendan, but it's got nothing to do with the issue under debate, it is about the debate itself and your conduct in particular. You ask why I haven't taken your 'side' in your accusations against TS, well I haven't taken anyone's side in any dispute other than those directly branching from my own contributions. I initially participated in the discussion because you asked for community comment and find myself being played with in silly games in what is a minor discussion about an article style matter. I did not involve myself in the accusations and counter-accusations of either you or TS.

The discussion on my talk page consisted of the grand total of; Timeshift informing me that you had breached the 3RR during your tantrum about comments in the poll... my asking him if he was sure... and then him saying that he was sure and I could check it out myself... how does that alter my independence to this discussion or show any kind of conspiracy against you?

The pics don't matter, however the way you have turned this so personal is a worry, it is very similar to the modus operandi of another editor who shall reamain nameless. I couldn't be bothered engaging with you anymore in the discussion, you have been pushing and pushing my assumption of good faith and I'm now walking away. Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 07:14, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

PS. I hope you don't think that using my real name would worry me... it's a little strange but whatever gives you your jollies

Wikitownsvillian, I wasn't seeking for you to "take my side". I (foolishly?) expected that when you called yourself independant, this would mean you would be balanced in your criticism/commments. And yet you are unhappy about my conduct in particular. Perhaps you've missed the persistent attacks upon me and my rationality by Timeshift everytime he puts hand to keyboard. Have a look at his latest Hallmark moment on the Rudd image talkpage (the money quote: "Up yours you condescending troll. Good night.", and that's not the first time he's made comments like that). He has steered things in a personal direction from the very beginning, and characterising me as a "dictator", a "troll", and other things besides, and opposed my edits on the basis that I made them and he perceives them to be notionally "his". Timeshift has conceded this "glass jaw" tendency with his "Adam Carr" comment below. Your apparent condoning of his persistently rude behaviour, implied by your lack of criticism of it, is certainly a cause for worry and does you no credit. But whatever gives you your "jollies", eh?--Brendan [ contribs ] 13:09, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think if you stepped back and thought carefully about your participation here, you would see some things of which in retrospect you would not be proud which you have posted here and elsewhere recently. Neither yourself nor Timeshift9 have conducted yourself with distinction in this "debate", and I'm far from alone in considering your approach in particular unnecessarily aggressive at times - when I showed this page to a few uninvolved admins (none of them Australian in origin) so they could review it, they suggested this should be submitted to lamest edit wars ever, and I tend to agree with them. The hostility is completely unnecessary. We're all here to improve the article. I suggest dropping the image issue, which is getting almost to a WP:POINT situation across several talk pages over the past month or so, and working towards improving the article *text* - others can sort out the images, although the community hasn't expressed any great commitment either way and is probably happy to leave things as they are. If this persists for much longer, blocks are probably going to become necessary. As an involved editor I'm keeping my admin powers out of here, but there's enough heat in this kitchen to attract a small fire brigade. Orderinchaos 19:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I would like to point out that it's not just Alex taking the same view of me and you. This being your fault is different to the level of my behaviour (and yours) during this discussion. The behavioural aspect is anyone's to dispute. As for the merits and content and issue at hand - refer to all the posts ranging from advising image acceptability to full-out support. I think you need A Cup Of Tea, A Bex and A Good Lie Down Brendan. And perhaps diversify a bit more too rather than being so intent on particular pages. Timeshift 15:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh? I love the way you use so many words to say so little. Good for you :) --Brendan [ contribs ] 16:35, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I see Brendan insists on the more grainy version of this image without consensus. It's interesting to note the development of this rising self-imposed dictator who believe his views is the only one that counts and reverts as such. It would explain the very low ratio of edit count to pages edited for your contributions though.. Timeshift 16:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Your smear tactics are worthy of Brian Loughnane himself. Can you not see how precisely you've just described your own behaviour? You start a revert war and then attack and blame others. Haven't you noticed that the Rudd image I recontrasted and recropped has been the one up here since before the poll above began (ie. has been the one that everyone has been voting for)? You are zealously protective of the image content that you contribute. That's just not kocher. Per my comment on the image talkpage, the version I put up is not grainier, it has higher contrast, more saturation, a distracting background pole removed, and is a closer crop (at minimum compression) of the original source. When viewed at thumbnail size within an article, there is no graininess and the image benefits from the improved contrast. If they were to be physically resized down to the same actual size as the Howard'06 picture, graininess would not be discernible in either Rudd image. --Brendan [ contribs ] 17:15, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

When does a revert become a revert war? And yes, I am protective of all content I contribute, and revert contributions that detract from the quality of said content. Timeshift 17:19, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying. But everyone has a subjective view. That's why editing policy and principle advocates discussion instead of resorting to successive reverts. It is off-mark to call me a "dictator" when you hit revert without discussion and seemingly refuse to acknowledge or listen to rational arguments from those you instinctively disagree with. So long as that continues, consensus will be harder to achieve and a higher chance of content dispute will prevail. I don't want that, and I'd like to believe that you don't want that. But for that to be avoided, you've gotta to embrace Wikipedia policy more consistently (me too!), stop getting offended when people make "good faith" contributions (as you call them), and strive to discuss more instead of shooting straight from the hip (me too!). Look at the history of this page, for example, where you undid comments by Skyring because you didn't like the fact that, buried in there, he made a funny about Rudd and earwax. This, after you attacked me for what I saw as logically removing comments from the poll table because I honestly thought it would be better to keep discussion points in a discussion elsewhere on the talkpage (of which, JPD's comment above, desiring further discussion instead of a poll, is reminiscent). Do you really want things to keep going on like that? --Brendan [ contribs ] 17:41, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

That is the first rational post you've made in ages. However I defend my revert of Skyring's edit. You were the one to first go on about no comments in the table. I could see why you didn't want this, which is why I shortened my comment down to a couple of letters. Then you go against why you wanted no comments and completely disfigure the table, and then Skyring talks about earwax in the poll table? That just seems like he's trying to blatently mention the incident in as many places as possible. I have no issue discussing the earwax, i've contributed to that portion of the discussion myself. However, put that discussion in to where it belongs - not the poll table for which image is better. when you hit revert without discussion and seemingly refuse to acknowledge or listen to rational arguments from those you instinctively disagree with I couldn't put it better and is exactly how I feel about you, except that people have ranged from approval of image suitability to full-out support for me. I'd be prepared to move on if I thought it was a genuine attempt in being less controlling, as it seems everything is either your way or forced the other way with a poll. I'm always the one giving up the reverting and let you have your way in the end because I don't want to continue to push the envelope, and half the time I also simply move on to stop wasting my time. Sorry if this sounds full of bad faith but I can't help otherwise with the way you've acted lately. I have said all along however that I have an Adam Carr tendency at times to lose my cool, but detracting on talk pages is far different to articles. Timeshift 18:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

It's unreasonable to insist on poll comments, then revert the ones you don't like, after criticising me for wanting everyone to put comments in a more substantive discussion above or below the poll (which BTW actually might have avoided that particular upset in the first place). It's also unreasonable to imply that your harsh words are my fault. That's a cop out. We all choose how we respond. Nobody forces us to do anything here. I certainly haven't "forced" anything with a poll. The poll was Iorek85's suggestion, WikiTownsvillian implemented it and you commended him. Would you be criticising the poll had it produced the result you wanted? I do discuss my edits/reverts but you launch into attack mode each time I do (see the start of this talkpage topic for example) and then you jump on re-revert before allowing discussion to flow and consensus mature. Instead, you escalate straight to ANI where it gets pretty much ignored, because ANI is not for content disputes and it becomes apparent to anyone looking that you've bypassed the first critical step: talkpage discussion. This is not about "whose way" things go. It's about process and consensus. Otherwise, all we're left with is ego disputes and personality clashes that don't benefit the encyclopedia at all. --Brendan [ contribs ] 12:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

You guys realise you are arguing over a tiny image at the top of an article where both alternatives are (by the vote count above) acceptable, right? Perhaps it would be better for your blood pressures to just not edit this debate or the images for a while. There are other editors who can take over for you... Iorek 23:52, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Thoroughly concur. I must admit that I was astonished by Timeshift's reaction to my comments. A comment in a poll on a talkpage and he immediately goes into mindless revert mode. Cripes. Even now my tongue in cheek comment is labelled as "citation needed". I looked at each of the images and gave my honest opinion. When I looked at the non-smiling Rudd image, the first thing that popped into my mind was that there was something about his mouth, as if maybe he was chewing something. What could he be chewing. Aha, earwax! Heheheheh. I thought it was funny and maybe others would smile too. Instead there came a howl of outrage and frantic mashing of keys from Timeshiftland. --Pete 01:44, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I must admit, the earwax comment gave me quite a robust chuckle. --Brendan [ contribs ] 12:28, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Mind the grammer in the article: eg: biggest is not a synonym for significant or primary or principle.

Prime Minister template

Per this history, do people think it's better to have the template as this or this? I think it is better to have the PM included if they have served a second term, such as Deakin, Fisher, and Menzies. Eg, I think it just doesnt look right for the PM list to go from Reid to Fisher, or from Chifley to Holt. I strongly believe in the latter edit. Thoughts? Timeshift 03:48, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

I believe they should be listed once on the template, by the earliest date of their election. The template is designed as a quick-reference link to each PM. The actual sequential list can be dealth with within the article for each PM. --Gene_poole 03:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

But for the Liberal Party leader template, that doesn't apply? Timeshift 00:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Need of article split

Should this article be split into one on the election and another on the election campaign/s (or perhaps more)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.193.41 (talk) 05:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Nope. A lot of the ephemeral stuff will get edited down as history is allowed to judge it anyway, so there's a natural process at work which will result in a relatively ideal sized article. Orderinchaos 10:29, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

'History', of course, being determined once the winner of the election is determined. But I digress. GreenGopher 12:07, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

No need until at least after the election, length permitting. Timeshift 12:28, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

True enough, although what I was meaning is that on a campaign things happen which people think matter, then by even a few weeks later everyone has forgotten it and the minor sidenote one might have made three weeks earlier has now unexpectedly blown up into the big issue everyone remembers from that week. Orderinchaos 19:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

These are all interesting comments. However I'm not saying it's too large, but an election and an election campaign are two completely separate things. The former could contain the technical political side (such as the electoral redistribution) and the latter could contain speeches, places of visit on location, arguments put forward, etc. And I also don't think history should "judge", only document. Depends on your definition of history I guess. Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.193.41 (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for preferences

"WorkChoices as the biggest reason behind the Labor vote, with a fear of union dominance... as the biggest reasons behind the coalition vote"

I understand that this is referenced, but shouldn't we phrase this more in the positive: eg

Support of reppeal of IR laws for Labour

Support of economic management for coalition

We could use the same ref, or find a different one. ~Anon~

Why should we phrase it more positively? Iorek 06:51, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed - elections are usually lost by governments, not won by oppositions, as the saying goes. Furthermore, you should see the literature in my mailbox this week. A friend of mine's got an entire separate bin in her kitchen for "electoral rubbish" - but another friend of mine in the Hume electorate isn't getting any at all. I should scan some of them in for a laugh - black ominous-looking things from the Liberals telling us how evil Labor are, and soft fluffy things telling us how good Labor will be are generally the order of the day. (The final analysis, but we'll have to wait for it in the post mortems, will probably note that this is one of those very rare times that the election has been run on the opposition, not on the government - 2004 was another such.) Orderinchaos 21:13, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm sure the amount of junkmail depends entirely on the marginality of the seat. I live in a 'safe' seat (won't say for which party) and I haven't got enough electoral junkmail to wrap a mug. mike40033 05:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Because not liking one major party because of some aspect just stops you from voting for that party. It doesn't necessarily mean you're going to vote for the other major party. On a side note, just because anti-unionism is the biggest factor in the campaign, doesn't mean it's the biggest reason behind the vote.

58.169.160.159 11:12, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

We never said it did. We are simply quoting what reliable, cited, third party sources say. And we didn't say anti-unionism is the biggest factor, and if we did it would have been quoting from a source. Please spend some more time reading and learning about wikipedia before making such statements. Timeshift 15:04, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, anti-unionism was an exaggeration, and I apologise for that. "with a fear of union dominance... as the biggest reasons behind the coalition vote". Restatement: Just because fear of union dominance is the biggest factor in the campaign, doesn't mean it's the reason behind the vote. The source: "Many respondents say... the Labor Party is controlled by the unions". This is where wikipedia writors need to be very careful about source bias. Often sources use terms such as "many" to mislead - it a relative term. It could mean anything. Bias from a third party source often snowballs into heavier bias in wikipedia.

Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.160.159 (talk) 03:36, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

New turn in worm saga

The Liberal Party opposed the worm because the audience of 80 may not be a fair sample of the electorate and there could be bias in the selection. The outcome of the worm has been used by the media in the past to score up points for the Labor candidate. On November 4th 2007 the owner of the marketing firm McNair Ingenuity that chose the audience for the Nine Network's debate admitted that the audience could be biased. McNair executive Matt Balogh said "... we never offered to provide an audience of undecided voters" "Sure we asked them their political preferences. And most of them have political preferences," "But if they said they could change their minds, they were accepted." Wright, Lincoln. "New turn in worm saga", Herald Sun (News Corp, 4 November 2007. Retrieved on 2007-11-6.

Why did you remove this Timeshift9? You said "this isnt a campaign for or against the worm", but if you mention the debate, the worm, and the cut-feed then you need to know why the Liberal Party opposed it. It also makes sense that there should be some quotes from the person in charge of organising the worm's studio audience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.222.1 (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Because it is irelevent meaningless commentary. There is sufficient detail on the worm. Timeshift 12:53, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The actual reason given by JH was because it distracted the viewer's attention. There are articles pointing to the erratic behaviour of theworm, and anyone watching could see for themselves that it would zoom or dive according to who appeared on screen - before they said anything. --Pete 22:18, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Try watching the whole thing rather than going by media reports. It at times favoured both leaders and at times moved before things were said. There's nothing to stop any of the 80 people using the keypads from registering how they feel about a leader based upon their previous answers. Again, it is not for us to judge or criticise the worm. Timeshift 22:24, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Um. I did watch the whole thing. What made you assume I didn't? As you seem to accept, the audience reaction was based on prejudice, rather than what was actually being said. This was quite plain right from the start, when the worm twitched before a single word of substance was uttered. Using your reasoning, this was founded on what the leaders had said before the debate, hmmm? --Pete 01:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Because if you watched it, you'd realise those jumps before even speaking only began to take hold later in the debate once it was clear who was winning it and who had the best oratory since the Dunstan/Whitlam years. And also because at times it did favour both leaders, despite favouring Rudd far more. Timeshift 02:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I think that's a *little* excessive :) Rudd was certainly good, and Howard performed poorly with a few exceptions, but Kim Beazley 1997-1998 era, Geoff Gallop, Nick Greiner and several of Hawke's ministers (Barry Jones comes to mind) were outstanding speakers. Also Keating, who can think something straight out then say it in a way you don't see too many people manage in modern politics (considering he is actually younger than some of those governing today, and not just Howard either). Orderinchaos 02:26, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Well it is all up to opinion, but yes I believe Rudd's oratory outscores all of those you mentioned (and where did MPs come in to this? I was referring to party leaders...). And i'm not referring to Keating's invective or quick wit, I don't consider that the style of oratory i'm referring to in Rudd/Dunstan/Whitlam. But this is beside the point. Timeshift 02:34, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I've reverted this back to include the paragraph again. I don't think 'sufficient detail' is a good argument for excluding anything from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.1.222.1 (talk) 02:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

An IP reverting. How cute. Timeshift 02:38, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

No need to be condescending. I reverted the original inclusion of this paragraph because it claims that the liberals didn't want the worm for bias, which isn't mentioned in the reference, and because it implies that the worm was biased, which is not neutral. Especially "The outcome of the worm has been used by the media in the past to score up points for the Labor candidate." sentence. Iorek 10:24, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

But that goes against NPOV/neutrality/non-opinion/original research/whatever one wants to call it. The Liberals however did not want the debate right from the start and can be easily referenced if need be. Timeshift 20:42, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Why are we even arguing about this one? The paragraph was flawed from an NPOV view, Iorek removed it, problem solved. Orderinchaos 21:12, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Headings for the debates?

I've noticed that there is now a pattern of making every single 'leader debate' it's own sub-heading. To be frank, I don't think this is deserved, given they aren't THAT notable, and it hasn't been done in previous campaign articles. So far no debate (with the exception of the PM debate and perhaps, due to Tony Abbott being a complete knob, the health debate) has gotten any real attention. I would support removing the subheadings, so that we simply have a heading for each week, but the general 'theme' of the week should be placed there (ie week 5: interest rates and economic management.) For some reason this was discontinued a few weeks ag, no idea why as it makes it much easier to navigate. But I will leave it here for discussion rather then simply changing it. GreenGopher 22:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Orderinchaos 01:50, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not up to us to declare what a certain week was about. Any week will have been about more than two issues, and for us to select what we believe to be the most prominent two issues is POV and/or OR. Timeshift 02:16, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I was more agreeing on the leaders debates - I take your point re what should be in the headings, but I think the headings should still be per week, as each week has been a definite phase of the campaign and it also helps to break things up. Orderinchaos 02:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

What do you think now? The article is coming together quite well. Timeshift 05:52, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

New Roy Morgan out

Seems the ever unreliable Roy Morgan has released a new poll... see here... it gives Labor the highest 2pp poll so far at 62 percent. Timeshift 05:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Hah and it was conducted on the same weekend as the 53-47 Newspoll and the 54-46 Galaxy. Even their phone poll contradicts the F2F result. No wonder the media ignores them. 58.106.28.166 06:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the 53-47 newspoll, see [16] and [17]. Essentially, the year-average of Rudd, and the election campaign average differ by something like one percent, well within the three percent margin of error. All the commentators i've been reading (such as in those links) say that essentially the vote hasn't changed all year. Timeshift 06:51, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Now here's an interesting poll :P Timeshift 16:12, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Labor's up two to 55 on 2pp in the latest newspoll.[18] Also, this 1996v2007 graph is definately worth a look. Interesting times indeed. Timeshift 23:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Last 10 to 20 years of economic progress

Ok - when we have heard Howard referring to economics in his past decade as Prime Minister, who does he say is responsible for the great shape of the economy, and who does he constantly say ruined it and gives nobody credit for the economy but his government. Well it would come as no surprise that someone can't handle this and insists removal:

Howard also drew attention by referring to economic progress in the past "10 or 20 years", which according to Wendy Allen, a PhD candidate in linguistics at the University of Melbourne who is writing a thesis on political discourse, undoes the campaign message that Australia's strong economy is the Coalition's preserve.

Now I don't really care if it needs rephrasing, but rephrasing has been done in the past, but it seems Prester's only acceptable version is not to include any reference to the fact Howard for the first time has acknowledged Keating for the economic progress he made. Anyone who doesnt think this is worthy for inclusion hasn't seen Howard over the past 10 years. Prester's links and conflict of interest really do not help this article at times. It should be included in one form or another. Thoughts/comments? Timeshift 23:53, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Your constant, boring, baseless accusations of COI just prove your inability to argue above an ad-hominem level. Given all the material written by respectable political commentators over the past few weeks, is it really to wikipedia's credit that we use above all a university student writing her thesis. Get a grip. Prester John ^{-(Talk to the Hand)} 00:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Debate the issue (Howard for the first time referring to economic progress in the last 10-20 years) rather than the uni student. You aren't even prepared to rephrase the sentence. Normally Howard wouldn't give Keating any credit at all, but anyone who watched the full debate would realise how cheap Howard was getting, going back on a decade of Keating-slamming, to use him at 2 minutes to midnight in an attempt to say he's the better economic manager. I'll let this discussion run it's course, i'm heading off for a while now. Timeshift 00:09, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Doesn't matter where it came from, if it's biased (in either or any way) it doesn't belong here.

Anon —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.169.160.159 (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well i'm sure Prester will say it doesn't belong on Howard's page, and it was said during the debate which has it's own section on this page, so, preytell, where exactly does it belong? I think this page. Timeshift 03:52, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Mention it if and when it is picked up by Labor or by respected media commentators. University students don't count. I disagree with TS's comment "debate the issue... rather than the uni student". Debating the issue is in effect WP:OR. We should simply reflect the commentary which is out there. Peter Ballard 01:10, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Both the Border Mail and the West Australian both picked up on it. It's notable.

It's not "reported by random uni student" anymore. It's now been reported in two substnatial regional newspapers. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 01:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

But watch all the Liberal former MPs and Liberal supporters scream how it's non-noteable anyway. He just spends the last decade slamming Keating, and at two minutes to midnight does the unthinkable in a last ditch attempt to regain all his lost economic credibility. Oh well, only two more weeks till the most senior elected Liberal leader is some country mayor somewhere. Timeshift 09:58, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Uncivil Edit Summaries

I notice incivility in the edit summaries of this page. One editor is accusing another editor of operating an "IP sock". Personal insults in edit summaries makes the edit summary redundant for other editors, and besides, it is not the forum for personal accusations. I ask that this stops. Thanks, Lester 02:51, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, just noticed that. Prester John, there's a vast difference between forgetting to login before making an edit versus using an IP address a "sock". You should know better, from the last time you made an utter fool of yourself as a co-complainant in a false allegation that Lester and I were one and the same. Pfft. Nice try, but no cigar, mate. --Brendan [ contribs ] 05:04, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Hardly an accurate summary there, Brendan. We noticed some dodgy behaviour and similarity of mindstyles and asked for an IP check. --Pete 06:08, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

It's a perfectly accurate summary in fact. "Dodgy behaviour", Peter? You mean "expressing an independant editorial view"? Yes, I can see how you might have found that dodgy... --Brendan [ contribs ] 07:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

New Ex-Labor Anti-Labor Election Ad

The Government has released a new ad feature ex-Hawke Government MP Brian Courtice (reported here and here). Is that a new approach and/or noteworthy development? --Brendan [ contribs ] 07:03, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

The tedious minituae of the Liberal and Labor campaigns is bogging this article down aleady. 25% of Australians are going to vote for a party or independent other than Lib and Lab and yet I doubt 25% of this article is devoted to the Greens, Democrats, Family First, Nationals, etc. 09:49, 14 November 2007 (UTC)~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.191.37 (talk)

Rubbish. The only parties likely to form government after this election is the Liberal/National Coalition or the Australian Labor Party - the Greens, Demos, Family First and other parties are not going to form government, so it's only right that most of this article focus, as has been newsworthy, on the campaigning by the two major parties. You need to also remember that most of this article will be superceded by the actual election results, which should profile some of the minor parties, particularly in the Senate where they are likely to achieve the balance of power (as it is almost impossible for Labor to attain it). On a second point, if you're so concerned about the article, why don't you sign up to Wikipedia and help us write the article? It would be helpful to know who you are rather than just an anonymous IP. JRG 12:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually this election has seen significant polarisation of the electorate between the two major parties. The minor parties are having the life sucked out of them. [19] 58.106.28.166 12:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Um, if non-Lib and non-Lab candidates make up 80% of the total candidates in the election, and they traditionally get 20 - 25% of the vote, why shouldn't they get at least 20 - 25% of the article? A case could be made that in an article about the 2007 Australian election, candidates should have roughly equal space (ie non-lab, non-lib get 80% of the article). So what if Lib/Lab are likely to form government? That can be in the "Nth Australian Parliament article". This is an article about the election, and last time I checked there were a lot more candidates than just the Lib and Labor ones. I think the focus on the two majors is a bias, and has overwhelmed this article. Perhaps all the stuff about the campaigns of the majors should be moved to seperate articles. 59.101.191.37 —Preceding comment was added at 21:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We could also argue that the media doesn't spend 25% of their political coverage on minor parties. Campaign section has already been discussed and isn't moving until at least after the election. Timeshift 21:09, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Campaign launches

Any particular reason they both took place in Brisbane? I can see why Rudd would, but not Howard. 58.7.191.211 11:47, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Another case of me-too-ism? Timeshift 11:50, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Because Queensland is supposedly going to be where the election is won. I'm flattered to be thought of as so important, really. Iorek 05:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

1996 and 2007 similarities

http://blogs.theage.com.au/koutsoukis/archives/2007/11/what_they_said.html is an interesting read regarding polling amongst other things. Good read. Timeshift 07:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Description of ALP

Changed the description of the ALP from 'center-left' to 'Social Democratic' as I believe this is a more accurate description. Alans1977 20:24, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Forgot to mention that I'm referring to the second paragraph of the article. Alans1977 20:29, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Also just changed the description of the coalition from 'center-right' to 'economic rationalist, socially conservative' as I also believe this is a more accurate description. Again this is in the second paragraph of the article. Alans1977 20:41, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

All these descriptions are in the infoboxes of both party's pages, and then some. It's long been agreed that the current method is the best method. Reverted. Timeshift 20:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't agree. The terms center-left and center-right are far to broad to accurately describe the two sides. It is quite easy to argue that the ALP are far closer to the center (with some even arguing that they are center-right) than to the left. Usage of the term center-left is misleading in that it is not specific enough. Similar sorts of arguments can be used for the Coalition. Reverted. Alans1977 20:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

To argue the ALP is social democratic and Libs are economic rationalist is the misleading statement here. Both parties are economic rationalist. Centre-left and right are still and will always be correct as long as Labor stays to the left of the coalition, no matter how small that gap may be. Just because you don't agree, doesn't mean you can revert long-standing conventions. Timeshift 21:02, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. The thing about conventions is that they change. Calling the ALP center-left is completely misleading to someone who is in a socialist country or in a fascist country. Also I find the adding of the link http://www.daylife.com/photo/0e9ycyW73Tcaq as a reference to the ALP being center-left (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Australian_federal_election%2C_2007&curid=1056082&diff=171514591&oldid=171513850) demonstrates you're towing a POV argument. Reverted. Alans1977 21:12, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Australian_Labor_Party/Archive_1#No_Longer_Centre_Left - you have no consensus so why are you insisting? As for the refs I added, they were just the first ones in google when I was getting a cite for centre-left and centre-right. I have removed all descriptions while this is discussed. How you can describe the coalition but not the ALP as economic rationalists is beyond me. Timeshift 21:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

A discussion on another page involving 4 logged in users hardily constitutes me having or not having consensus on this page. Alans1977 21:16, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Describing one party but not the other as economic rationalist kinda blows your version out of the water doesn't it... Timeshift 21:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think so. Rudd might be trying to paint himself and Labor as economic rationalist at the moment, but whether that will be the case if the ALP wins is another thing. Whereas it is easier to describe the Coalition as economic rationalist. Also I felt it would not of been doing the Coalition justice just to call them socially conservative. Alans1977 21:23, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Eh? Labor has been economically rationalist since 1983... Hawke, Keating, Beazley, Crean, Latham, Rudd, they are/were all economic rationalists... I think you need to do a bit more research on the economic policies of earlier Labor governments and oppositions. Timeshift 21:27, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Would you be happier with the term Neoliberalism is relation to Coalition ideology? Alans1977 21:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think everyone was happy with the way it was. Democratic socialism/social democracy/third way on ALP infobox, liberal conservative/conservative liberal/new right on Lib infobox, and centre-left and centre-right in infoboxes and on election page. I think others need to comment on if they prefer this, or calling ALP social democratic and libs socially conservative and economic rationalist in the election intro... Timeshift 21:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

People reading this article might not want to read further into the ALP or the Coalition. Also just because no one on this page has mentioned it before, that does not mean it is implied that everyone is happy with it. Clearly I am not happy with calling the Coalition center-right and calling the ALP center-left, as I believe thess terms are too broad and as a consequence could be misleading. I am however happy to hear what other people have to say. Alans1977 21:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

You think centre-left and centre-right is misleading, yet you're happy to label the Libs but not the ALP as economic rationalists? Ahahahaha. Timeshift 21:46, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I see your point there. I'd be happy to remove 'economic rationalist, socially conservative' and replace it with 'neoliberal'. Alans1977 21:56, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I also think some would object to neoliberal. Liberal conservative, conservative liberalism, and New Right describe them best, per Liberal Party of Australia - same goes for Labor, best described by Democratic socialism, Social democracy, and Third Way, per Australian Labor Party (and Labour Party (UK) too...) Timeshift 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I think a read of the Neoliberalism page shows quite well how the Coalition falls into the category. Alans1977 22:07, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

This debate is not dissimilar to one that have cropped up on many other articles on parties and elections in other countries (the ongoing one on Talk:Labour Party (UK) springs most readily to mind). It basically boils down to whether or not there is some objective NPOV concept of "left" and "right" that is all applicable or whether in a country with long established dominant political parties "left" and "right" are predominantly the descriptions for where those parties lie in the country's system, with notions of what ideas constitute "left" and "right" stemming from what the parties say and do. The latter is frankly the only meaningful use of the terms - over time and across different countries "left" and "right" have taken on very different meanings. Unless anyone's seriously arguing that the ALP is actually to the right of the Coalition then surely "centre left" and "centre right" are succint enough descriptions? Timrollpickering 22:13, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And they are Tim. We just need a few more similar posts to demonstrate consensus before we can change it back to what it has been for ages. Timeshift 22:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Tim, Australians are not the only people who may read this page and thus usage of terms center-left and center-right are in my opinion misleading. Timeshift, I did not argue that the ALP is to the right of the Coalition. Alans1977 22:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes I know non-Australians read the page (like me) but I'm not sure a very long introductory sentence like "The opposition democratic socialist, social democratic, Third Way (Centrist) Australian Labor Party, currently led by Kevin Rudd and deputy leader Julia Gillard, will be the main challenger to the incumbent Coalition government in power since the 1996 election, currently led by the Prime Minister and leader of the conservative liberal, liberal conservative, New Right Liberal Party of Australia, John Howard, and his coalition partner the Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the conservative, agrarianist National Party of Australia, Mark Vaile" is really doing the reader any favours, especially when the distinction between "democratic socialist" and "social democrat" can be so complicated as to evade easy understanding; ditto the difference between "conservative liberalist" and "liberal conservative" and also for that matter with "conservative"; and that's just taking the terms used to describe them on their pages. Oh and just in case they feel left out, the Country Liberal Party is just a "liberal conservative" according to its own page whilst the Coalition (Australia) is just described as "centre-right". Anything further and it gets into the area of labels that aren't even used on the relevant party's own article so I question why this is the place to start labelling the parties with such concepts. Timrollpickering 22:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

And Timeshift I would be happy with the terms center-left and center-right being removed than them being put back, even if that means there is nothing else there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alans1977 (talk • contribs) 22:22, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Well i'm not, so i'll await consensus. Timeshift 22:30, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

We've been through this many times before. "Centre-left" and "Centre-right" are by far the best neutral, single-phrase descriptions for ALP and Coalition respectively. They are unambiguous. They are free from loaded or ambiguous jargon like "third way", "liberal", "social democrat" etc. Peter Ballard 00:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with the above. Centre-left and centre-right is definitely the best description; succint and accurate. Recurring dreams 00:54, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

"Center-left" and "center-right" are certainly a lot more ambiguous than terms like "liberal", "social democrat", etc. Especially when one does not the context in which the terms "center-left" and "center-right" are being used. Also I don't see how terms such as "liberal" and "social democrat" are loaded. Alans1977 01:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I meant "third way" was loaded. As for "Center-left" and "center-right" being more ambiguous than "liberal" or "social democrat", I disagree 100%. Peter Ballard 01:33, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Alan, please stop reverting the corrections. It is obvious what people favour here, and just because there is one objection, by you, that doesn't suddenly mean there isnt a consensus. Timeshift 01:35, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I really don't see how "social democrat", "liberal" or "social conservative" really makes the situation clearer. None of the terms encompass the entire philosophical position of either party. Much better to go for the simple and commonsense description. Recurring dreams 01:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Timeshift, three people with one point of view and one against is a long way from consensus, especially when the conversation has only gone on for half a day and there very well be others who share my sentiments. Alans1977 02:02, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As already stated by me and others, we've had this debate so many times before. Nothing changes, people always favour centre-left and centre-right. How about discussing it here BEFORE making your changes? Seeing as it's been this way for ages... then if somehow, you find that you gain support for your ideas, THEN go about changing it. Timeshift 02:12, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll not step into the debate over which term is more accurate (though I'll note that if you try political compass, the Libs are right to far right, Labor centre-right and the greens mid left) but I will say we should use whatever the party articles use. If there is a debate over what ideology they are, that should be made on the individual party discussion pages, where more interested editors can comment. Iorek 07:34, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Crikey vids

• Crikey election 07: Are you ready?
• Crikey election 07: week 1
• Crikey election 07: week 2
• Crikey election 07: halfway mark
• Crikey election 07: week 4
• Crikey election 07: week 5

Enjoy! Timeshift 09:14, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

John Howard does not have Force Choke abilities

So he really isn't Darth Vader/Sith Lord material. Roswell Crash Survivor (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

"Cut & Paste attack"?

A recent addition describes the release of the Tony Abbot video an "attack", and a "Labor party 'cut-and-paste job'". Here's the edit. Is it a Labor attack? Do we need to describe it as "an attack"? Using that kind of wording, anything in the election campaign could be called "an attack". And what is a "cut-&-paste job"? There are other articles which quote Abbott admitting he used the words depicted in the video, and articles quoting the Labor Party denying they doctored the video. I think this section needs a rewrite.--Lester 05:19, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Cut and paste job is how it was described. Replaced attack with video. Section should be fine now. Timeshift 10:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Cut and paste is in inverted commas and is a quote - it should be noted after it that the Labor party contested that version of events, preferably with a quote from them, and then the thing is NPOV. The mission should always be "let the facts tell the story". Orderinchaos 23:22, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Infobox poll

What polls are currently being used in the infobox for this page? If it isn't already the case but the infobox simply hasn't been updated, as ACNielsen and Newspoll are the only two to do Preferred Prime Minister as well, in addition to the obvious graphs I propose we have the latest of those two there and disregard the other two, ie: changing the current newspoll 55 to acnielsen 54 and PPM etc. Timeshift (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

Robb and the 13 Labor candidates

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,22795174-5012863,00.html and http://www.theage.com.au/news/federal-election-2007-news/libs-predict-candidate-limbo/2007/11/21/1195321822861.html - a QC has even offered an opinion (of approval) over the ALP Wentworth candidate. Is this noteable to the campaign (i'm not sure either way on this) and if so, a bit more balance would be nice. Timeshift (talk) 01:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Territory Senators

There seems to be a little confusion about when Territory senators’ terms start. Section 6 of the Senate (Representation of Territories) Act 1973 says: “The term of service of a senator for a Territory commences on the day of his election and expires at the close of the day next preceding the polling day for the general election of members of the House of Representatives next following his election. [20].

We now have the words "the day of his election", but I think it's a little ambiguous for our article. From some recent edits, some people seem to think it means the day on which the election results are officially announced (some weeks after the election). That’s not true; it’s the day on which the election took place. The terms of ACT/NT senators elected on 9 October 2004 expire on 23 November 2007. Whoever is elected on 24 November, and no matter when the results are announced, their terms commence on 24 November. For example, see Kate Lundy’s terms of service listed in the Parliamentary Handbook here:

• 2.3.1996 – 2.10.1998†;
• 3.10.1998– 9.11.2001;
• 10.11.2001 - 8.10.2004;
• 9.10.2004 –

I believe the only reason for the general phrase "the day of his election" is to cover the circumstance where there's a casual vacancy, in which case the relevant territory legislature now elects the replacement senator. This can happen at any time the legislature is sitting, and they make their own rules about that. Other than that exception, territory senators are always elected on the same day as the general election for the House of Reps. I'm going to change this para to make it clear. The Australian Senate article also contains some errors of fact in relation to this and I'll be changing that too. JackofOz (talk) 22:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Later thought. We talk about the Lib/Nats possibly losing control of the Senate "immediately" if they lose an ACT Senator. This is slightly hyperbolic when you consider that the first possible time any vote will be taken in the Senate will be whenever it first meets, and that might be as late as 24 February 2008. So nothing will change "immediately" in terms of legislation or in terms of the influence any particular groups of senators may have in the Senate.

But the terms of service of senators and members are not the same thing as the sitting dates of parliament. If that were not so, whenever the parliament rises for, say, the winter recess (typically June-August), there would be no members or senators at all during that time, which is a slightly absurd proposition. From the moment new members/senators are declared elected following Saturday's election (and there'll be whole swag of different declarations on different dates), new members are entitled to put MP after ther names, new territory senators are entitled to refer to themselves as "Senator Smith", and new state senators, who will start their terms on 1 July 2008, are entitled to refer to themselves as "Senator-elect Smith" in the meantime. Also, all these people are entitled to set up electorate offices as soon as Dept of Finance and Administration (or whatever it might get called after the new government, whichever it is, is sworn in) can organise them. From the moment of their declaration, new members and territory senators are entitled to postage, travel, staff etc at taxpayer's expense, and they're entitled - nay, required - to make representations on behalf of their constituents. They will also be paid their parliamentary salaries with effect from 24 November 2007, and new ministers will be paid their Ministerial salaries from whenever the new government is sworn in. So, they start serving the public immediately, but their parliamentary activity will not occur for some months. Hence, maybe it's worth having a think about what we really mean when we say the Lib/Nats could possibly lose control of the Senate "immediately". -- JackofOz (talk) 23:42, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

That's exactly why the wording I used avoided mentioning their "terms", but focussed on taking their seats at the commencement of the next parliament, avoiding the largely irrelevant question of whether "day of his election" refers to being declared elected or the date on which polling took place. I think it's enough to express the fact that the new territory senators will be senators next time the Senate meets. JPD (talk) 10:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I can see where you're coming from, JPD. I guess the essence of the above is that having parliamentary debates is not the ony thing that parliamentarians do, and it's not irrelevant to state that territory senators commence their terms on election day. Which goes hand in hand with mentioning that state senators start on 1 July 2008, when the parliament will again not be sitting, being in the midst of the winter recess. I appreciate that parliamentary control is the primary point of the paragraph, not whatever else parliamentarians happen to do, but I think there's room for compromise.

Your edit was "Since territory senators take their seats from the commencement of the next parliament (unlike new state senators, whose terms commence on 1 July 2008), this would see the coalition losing control of the Senate immediately", and your edit summary was "noone's term begins on polling day - results aren't even official for quite some time". I have some issues with both of these. Not sure what "take their seats" might mean to a casual reader – it might mean having the right to occupy a seat in the senate chamber and participate in proceedings next time it meets, or it might just mean they "become a senator". As I explained above, it’s not true that "no one’s terms begin on polling day" - in fact about 68% of parliamentarians commence on election day (the 4 territory senators and the entire House of Reps). In any event, the commencement of any politician’s term has nothing to do with on whatever date the poll is declared.

I suggest we change:

• This would see the coalition losing control of the Senate immediately because, unlike new state senators, whose terms commence on 1 July 2008, the terms of senators from the ACT and the NT commence on election day, to
• This would see the coalition losing control of the Senate as soon as the Parliament next meets because, unlike new state senators, whose terms commence on 1 July 2008, the terms of senators from the ACT and the NT commence on election day.

This encapsulates everything we both want in there, and connects them. Thoughts? -- JackofOz (talk) 12:51, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless there's any formal vote that determines who controls the Senate, who's the "majority leader" and so forth then I'd reckon the former makes more sense as it isn't bound up with pedantry. For instance if the Senate was called into emergency session before the scheduled next meeting (is this provision available) then it would be the new territory Senators and thus not Coalition controlled. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I honestly don't know if it's possible for the Senate to meet prior to the Reps meeting after a general election, and I'm sure there are no precedents. But your point crystallises the matter, anyway, so thank you. Regardless of when the Reps convenes, we're talking about whatever happens in the Senate whenever it happens to meet for the first time after the election. If the coalition no longer had a majority because they'd lost an ACT senator to Labor, then everything changes on Day 1 of the Senate sittings. The first order of business would be the election of the President. If no party or coalition has a majority, there's no telling which nominee would get up - it would depend on how the independents/Greens/Democrats go. And it would go on from there, to the first vote on anything else that mattered, eg. a bill. So, what I think we really need is:

• This would see the coalition losing control of the Senate when it next meets because, unlike new state senators, whose terms commence on 1 July 2008, the terms of senators from the ACT and the NT commence on election day.

Btw, I don't think this has anything to do with pedantry, and everything to do with accuracy. -- JackofOz (talk) 20:48, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

The Lindsay Affair at end of week 6 section

Should this get its own page? I'm not advocating removal, just trying to gauge wikipedia community opinion. Timeshift (talk) 08:57, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

I say no. What, a WP page for every news item now? Delete and merge into election article (where it already is, no doubt). I also note that searching on Google News for "Lindsay Affair" gets zero hits, so to give the scandal a name is a form of WP:OR. Peter Ballard (talk) 09:26, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Bear in mind it was only revealed yesterday and google usually takes a few days at least to crawl through new pages. Timeshift (talk) 09:29, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Google News doesn't. Searching for 'kelly leaflets' (without the quotes) gave 377 hits. Peter Ballard (talk) 10:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

True. Timeshift (talk) 10:16, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

News Limited's news.com.au website has been offering a PDF download of the actual document, if that's any help. I think 'The Lindsay Affair' is a reasonably neutral name.Lester 10:41, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

See Talk:The Lindsay Affair for "Lindsay affair" reference. Timeshift (talk) 14:39, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Election eve polls out

2PP - Galaxy ALP 52, ACNielsen ALP 57 with Rudd 52-40 Howard on PPM.[21][22] Timeshift (talk) 15:31, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Sky news reporting Newspoll of 52 percent ALP 2PP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Timeshift9 (talk • contribs) 05:03, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Bali bombing controversy, Hilaly comment

Is the comment by Hilaly calling on the faithful to vote Labor worth mentioning in the article? What about the controversy about the death penalty for the Bali bombers? Or would this be giving undue prominence to security-related issues? Andjam (talk) 00:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

About the Hilaly thing, no not really. Most of the Muslims live in dead safe ALP strongholds and usually vote ALP anyway. It would be more notable if the opposite thing happened, like the Auburn by-election. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Wording of Islamic Australia Federation hoax

Is opposing the execution of Bali bombers the same as supporting terrorists? Is this NPOV? The IAF's POV? Clark's POV? The ALP's POV? Andjam (talk) 00:44, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Well, it's a bit tricky. In the general case, no, since a lot of people oppose all death penalty. In the case of this hoax, it would be fair to assume that the "pamphlet-POV" is that "Labor supports violent jihad". So, yeah, it's a bit tricky. Blnguyen (bananabucket) 00:47, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The "pamphlet-POV" is that "Labor supports violent jihad". The coalition had implied that exact message during the last term of parliament on more than one occasion. So I have no qualms. Timeshift (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

The Coalition (as a whole) doesn't support the execution of the Bali bombers. Does that make them pro-jihad as well? Andjam (talk) 04:26, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Exactly!! The hypocrisy and dog-whistling on this issue is incredible. Timeshift (talk) 04:31, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Dog-whisting? You're not seriously suggesting that this was a ploy from high up in Liberal ranks? Any Liberal with half a brain would see this would backfire. It's not dog-whistling, it's just plain idiocy. Peter Ballard (talk) 04:43, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, how things did backfire on them. This sort of thing backfired for Labor before, you'd think the Liberal Party would have learned. And Jackie Kelly? You were just inviting the Chaser to appear when you went on radio. Thus they did on the day, causing more embarassment for the Liberal Party member. Nice going. - 220.237.19.227 (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Unless you (Timeshift9, not Peter Ballard) can find a reliable source saying that the Coalition as a whole implies that Labor is intentionally pro-jihad, it may be better to treat implication as in the eye of the beholder. Andjam (talk) 04:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

I'll clarify - i'm talking in the broad, not the specific. I'm not saying this pamphlet issue is Liberal Party dog whistling (although those in the NSW executive that were a part of this could be considered so), i'm saying the theory of Labor supporting terrorists/ism is. Timeshift (talk) 04:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Peter Ballard (talk) 05:05, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, in the Lindsay affair article, someone's digged up an article where Downer accused Labor of coming "in support of the Bali bombers".

Just some thinking out loud: does supporting terrorists mean you support terrorism? And couldn't the Islamic Australia Federation be "truthers" rather than endorsing what happened at Bali? Andjam (talk) 05:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

My point exactly. I was amazed when Howard came out with his "lightening speed" words. Any other time he'd have joined in with his other ministers and/or MPs at hinting Labor likes to dabble with terrorists. Timeshift (talk) 05:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Do you feel that supporting terrorists is the same as supporting terrorism? Andjam (talk) 05:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

It depends on why the person is allegedly supporting the terrorist. If it is for their cause, then yes. But the term terrorist/m, spanning from terror, is completely subjective. One man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. One side are supposed terrorists to the other, and vice versa. Timeshift (talk) 05:27, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Use of the word terrorist

Timeshift's comments remind me of a stylistic change that I find a little odd.

For most of the coverage of the Bali bombings, in both the media and in wikipedia, the preferred (but not exclusive) terms have been Bali bombings and Bali bombers. Less harsh terms than terrorism or terrorists. Thank you, soft, cuddly and non-judgemental main stream media.

Yet for the Islamic Australia Federation hoax, they've been elevated to terrorists.

Why? Is it because some people want to make the Lindsay 5 as nasty as possible? Andjam (talk) 06:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Makes sense. I've changed it to Bali bombers, as it is both more precise and more neutral, though the Bali Bombing page does call it an act of terrorism, and since they are convicted of having done it, this makes them terrorists. Iorek (talk) 06:42, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Exit poll

google news only has one article mentioning exit polls less than 16 hours ago (as of 05:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)), and that's saying they'll soon be released. I'm removing until a citation can be provided. If it was heard on the radio, it'd explain why I couldn't find it in google news, however. Andjam (talk) 05:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I concede it cannot be referenced, i'm hearing this from unquoteable sources. But i'm sure it will all be out soon enough. Timeshift (talk) 06:07, 24 November 2007 (UTC)