Talk:2007 Australian federal election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

→

Archive 5

Untitled

Do we really need this page?

Normally, I'm in favour of having articles on events such as the next election, but most of the original research on this page is pure garbage.

As well as the mini-edit-war over this rubbish about the Greens being under threat, who added the line about Family First being a potential threat to the Liberals to rival One Nation? As they could only win one senator, despite being preferenced by practically everybody, and got roundly thrashed by the Greens on primary vote in (I believe) every single state, I'm finding this a little hard to believe.

Mark Latham will lead the ALP into the next election? Says who? He may well do so - but we shouldn't be stating this as a given, particularly considering the last week. The Liberal leadership speculation is premature, particularly as it fails to mention other likely candidates for the job.

About the only "facts" on this page that aren't likely to be disputed are the fall of the Democrats, which could be attributed to practically any political commentator around, and Howard's impending handover of the leadership. Everything else is at best disputable, and at worst, complete and utter rubbish. Ambi 09:31, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think it's worth keeping. I've done a major re-write to expunge the rubbish and inject a dose of rationality and NPOV into it.--Gene_poole 09:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Thank you for your rewrite, Gene poole - it's a significant improvement. I'm going to delete the bit about the Greens, though. a) It's very unlikely that the preferences deals of this election will be repeated, as it got the Labor Party and the Democrats exactly what they didn't want, so we shouldn't be stating it as if it is a likely occurrence. b) If Christine Milne could get elected, as a new senator, despite all the preference dealing against her, I don't think Bob Brown, with his much higher profile, is going to have much trouble getting re-elected. As for Kerry Nettle, who knows - any assumptions there would truly be original research. Ambi 09:51, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think we should retain something about the potential impact of 2004-style preference deals on the Greens' - and indeed Family First's chances. At this stage we have no idea what imperatives may be driving party decision-making on the subject in 2007 - but I think it would be safe to assume that if the current government perceives the Greens as a threat to their unfettered control of the Senate they will preference every which way imaginable to maximise any perceived disadvantage. --Gene_poole 09:59, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

The only thing that I'd consider mentioning - but it's probably still too early to tell - is that Family First is very unlikely to get such a good deal again, particularly from Labor. The government may try to maximise the disadvantage of the Greens, but I don't think it's quite what Labor had in mind, and it's them who led to the Greens' bizarre situation this time around. They clearly saw the deal as a means of helping Senator Collins retain her seat, rather than helping Steve Fielding beat David Risstrom in Victoria, and Jacquie Petrusma (almost) beat Christine Milne in Tasmania. I doubt Labor would be so foolish again. Ambi 10:09, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

this article is getting too speculative. i suggest that all speculation is removed and we simply leave the details of election timing etc and comment on the rest IF and when it eventuates. Xtra 10:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Beazley

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

Bennelong

Before we post POV crap like that paragraph on the page, we have to consider why the seat is a marginal. As with Brand, Beazley's seat, Bennelong is now held by a small margin. This swing occured at the last election. It was identified by Anthony Green that the main reason for the swing was due to the anti-Howard movement that built up in the electorate. Factors also notable are the standing of Andrew Wilkie as the Greens candidate. This style of swing also occured in Phillip Ruddock's seat. When Howard resigns, it is likely the anti-Howard camp will split between the Liberals and ALP with a new margin of around 57% to the Libs. Evolver of Borg 19:16, 7 Nov 2005 (UTC)

In reply:

• Thanks for describing my work here as "POV crap." In a similar charitable spirit let me describe your comments as "ignorant shit." I will retract and apologise when you do.
• Bennelong has become a marginal seat partly through boundary changes (the seat has been moved substantially to the west), partly through demographic change on the Lower North Shore (particularly a growing Asian community) and partly through the general long-term softening of Liberal support in upper-income areas (seen across the North Shore and also in seats like Kooyong, Higgins, Boothby and Ryan) since the 1980s. I doubt Howard's personal standing is a contributor to the decline in Bennelong, in fact the reverse is probably true. Of course, the ideological tone of Howard's government has contributed to the softening of the Liberal vote in its safe seats, but that is a different issue.
• The swing to Labor in Bennelong was not unique to that seat. Every seat on the North Shore, plus Wentworth and Cook (ie, all the safe Liberal seats in Sydney), swung to Labor. Even in 2001, Bradfield and Mackellar swung to Labor.
• The reason Brand is marginal is quite different. It is full of "Howard battlers" and sensitive to issues like immigration and national security. That part of WA has never been safe for Labor, whereas Bennelong used to be a safe Liberal seat.
• Wilkie did poll very well for a Green, but of the 12.3% increase in the Green vote, only 3.2% came from the Liberals. 4.4% came from the Democrats and 2.5% from Labor. In other words he largely redistributed the "left" vote rather than took votes directly from Howard.
• Neither of us can know what will happen if Howard retires in 2007. My view is that he has built up a personal vote over 30 years and that some of this will be lost. Your view is that he has a "negative personal vote" and that the Liberal vote will recover. We will see.
• I am reinstating my paragraph, minus the sentence about 2007.

Adam 09:25, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I have also noticed and removed your stupid partisan swipe at Beazley. Perhaps you would like me to add "Phillip Ruddock: May retire if convicted of incest" - a perfectly true statement. Adam 09:46, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, in his defence, there is quite reasonable and widespread speculation that Beazley may not be leader at the next election, whereas I've not yet heard any claims about Ruddock being charged with incest. Ambi 09:51, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Adam, that Beazley comment was not partisam, but just a comment on a possibility. What has it got to do with incest? Xtra 09:52, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I am making that point that including Beazley in the "list of members who may retire," when he is the Leader of the Opposition and fully intending to fight the 2007 election, is a gratuitous partisan swipe (from an editor who is a self-declared Liberal). For the record, I have no reason to believe that Ruddock is to be charged with anything. Nevertheless, the statement that he would probably retire if he was charged with incest is a true one, which goes to prove the point that a factual statement can still be very misleading. Adam 10:02, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

It just makes clear that there is speculation that he may be toppled as leader, and that in that case, there is a good chance that he would resign; just as if Howard steps down as leader, he is likely to resign from parliament. Considering that that's been touted as a possibility by quite a number of commentators, I don't think it's all that unreasonable to add here. And for the record, I'm a Labor supporter. Ambi 10:42, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

I am, as we speak, sitting in the Labor whips' office in Parliament House. I talk to Caucus members all day. I can assure you that there is absolutely no speculation here that Kim will be toppled as Leader. Howard's IR bills have had a quite miraculous rallying effect on Caucus, and Kim's performances have been his best for years (not that you'd know that from reading The Age). OK, I am an ALP staffer and I am biased, but I have enough independence of judgement to know what is going on here. Of course it is true as an abstact proposition that "if Kim's leadership collapses" he might retire. But if he can be added to the "list of members who may retire" on those grounds, then I am entitled to add every member of the House, because there are, as abstract propositions, reasons why each one of them "might retire." Adam 10:54, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

To note something as "striking" is innappropriate on an unbiased encyclopedia, unless it is in the context of arts. "Striking" is POV language and thereby crap. I apologise for not being specific in referring to this, because that use of language is just plain bias. However, I still believe that work of Anthony Green qualifies him better to analyze the situation in Bennelong, although I would be very interested to see you joining in the ABC's election coverage (I'm being very serious).

I will restate my position once again however, supported Xtra and Ambi. If we are going to remove Beazley, we have to remove Howard. Howard wants to stay in his job as much as Beazley wants to stay in his. This page is speculative, it doesn't necessarily have to be accurate. I also do not see why you keep removing John Andersohn. You seem to have a thing about removing my edits on him :). Nonetheless, tell me why you believe that Anderson won't be resigning.

Again, saying Brand was never safe when there was previously a 60% margin is incorrect. Maybe it is more prone to swing, but safe in my and many other people's definition is when there is a margin getting above 8%.

I'm going to reinsert Anderson and remove Howard. I'm going to go further and speculate that he's going to retire at a bi-election, and therefore doesn't belong on the page. And please stop taking personal swipes at me Adam, you only succeed in creating unnecessary tension. And if you see Senator Gavin Marshall, tell him one of the boys he met at Bialik College says hi. Evolver of Borg 10:31, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

I hardly see how that is partisan when we are speculating. Accusing someone of this is highly offensive Adam. I personally hope that for the ALP's sake, Beazley does get the chance to resign if a better leadership choice becomes available. However, I did not put this point in the article. Evolver of Borg 10:36, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Borg, your concern for the ALP's welfare is very touching. For my part, I hope that Howard sinks into a pit of burning sulphur. I think we had both better abstain from editing this article and leave it to people who don't have obvious partisan loyalties. I didn't intentionally delete Anderson from the list. My personal opinion is that all three of them will run again, but as you say this is all speculation. Adam 00:20, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I disagree. Everyone has some kind of loyalty. We just need to try to keep them in check. However, snideness and rudeness don't help resolve conflicts. Xtra 00:51, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree, but nevertheless, when we have a situation like this, where I am an ALP member and Borg is a Liberal member and we are arguing about a political article, it is probably better if we both back off and leave it to someone else. Adam 01:14, 8 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Adam, and with Xtra's second point. Lets leave it there. Evolver of Borg 20:09, 8 Nov 2005 (UTC)

Where in the world are the minor parties

We should have some thing about all the parties not just the major parties and the major minor parties. --59.100.35.155 10:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

---

Does anyone know how and when we get to know who the candidates and minor parties are for the 2007 election? The best official reference I've found is the following link on the AEC website, but it's really just a 2004 reference list: http://www.aec.gov.au/Parties_and_Representatives/Party_Registration/Registered_parties/Current/index.htm

Another reference is the Candidates of the Australian general election, 2007#Senate but this page seems to only shortlist a few of the candidates.

Last election day, I had a number of minor parties and independents which I didn't even know what they stood for. How can we get to know this information and give these minor parties a fair go?
-- Matthew 1130 15:29, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Opinions?

The following line is simply opinion and assertion without citation: "Labor would also need to win the seat of Wentworth, which has existed since 1901 and never elected a Labor member." I will modify if there are no arguments.Recurring dreams 08:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Back to Bennelong (and title of article)

Firstly, what the hell is 'Australian legislative election'? When has any Australian election ever been referred to as a "legislative election"? Or anyone referred to Cth parliament as the 'legislature'? That's one completely counterintuitive title. Commonwealth, Federal, Australian and Parliamentary (or a mix'n'match combination) would all be better adjectives.

Also, given the hate and then love that developed between Evolver of Borg and Adam, the point(s) about the Bennelong entry seem to have been lost.

1. It's not a 'key marginal', any more than any other marginal is 'key'. Seeing that (on any view) there are peculiar factors that may well take it in a different direction to the electorate as a whole, the fate of Bennelong will actually be an unusually poor barometer of which side will win the entire election, compared with other marginals held by similar margins.

2. "This area of Sydney has undergone substantial demographic change" is an unsourced and vague assertion. I mean, pretty much all areas of Sydney have undergone substantial demographic change in the last 50 years. That demographic change is only relevant in the context of this page if it causes an electoral trend (e.g. Richmond, Adelaide, Kooyong). Bennelong's results have displayed no consistent trend over the last 15 years. In lieu of any evidence (which, if it exists, should be referred to), there's no reason to think that Bennelong's demographic change has either been more substantial, or more electorally significant, than anywhere else. I'd recommend just deleting the sentence.203.3.176.10 04:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Both of these problems have now been addressed. Joestella 19:34, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Senate Majority

"To gain a majority in the Senate, Labor, the Greens and/or the Democrats would need to win two seats from the Coalition. Given that these parties won three of the six vacancies in each state at the 2001 election, they would have to win four vacancies out of six in two states when these seats come up for re-election in 2007. This is considered unlikely. If Labor or the Greens gain one seat from the Coalition, Steve Fielding of the Family First Party would hold the balance of power."

The author of these comments appears to view the Greens, Democrats and Labor as some kind of block. If the government lost two seats, there would be no majority in the senate. If the government lost two seats, Steven Fielding would not hold the balance of power, he would hold it in conjunction with the Greens and Dems.

"This is considered unlikely". Who consider's it unlikely? Perhaps: "This is unlikely" or, "This would require a signifigant swing against the government" --Kieran Bennett 10:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

In reply:

• In the 1996, 1998 and 2001 parliaments the ALP, Greens and Dems did function as an "anti-Howard bloc" on many issues, although not all (the Dems passing the GST being the most obvious example). If these parties were to gain two seats from the Coalition in 2007 they would no doubt do so again, making a Coalition government's life more difficult.
• Fielding's loyalties have not been tested in this parliament because the Coalition has a majority on most issues without him. If the Coalition is re-elected in 2007 but loses one seat to the ALP or Greens, they will need Fielding to pass all legislation, and then his basic loyalties will be exposed. Few doubt that he would support the Coalition most of the time. Thus it is true to say that he would hold the balance of power, between the Coalition and the ALP-Green anti-Howard bloc.
• I am happy to change "This is considered unlikely" to "This would require a signifigant swing" - I haven't worked out exactly what swing would be needed in which states for the Coalition to lose one, let alone two seats (swing is a slipperly concept in Senate elections), but I would imagine the required swing is substantial. Adam 11:47, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

But this statement still implies that Labor and the Greens/Dems are guaranteed to vote against the Liberals on all legislation. Of course they would vote against the Liberals while they were in power- smaller parties have a history of "ganging up" on the govt to block legislation- who is to say they would not do the same should Labor win the election? Besides there have been notable points in history when Liberal/Greens or Liberal/Dems have teamed up to pass legislation (Liberal/Dems for the GST to pass and Liberal/Greens for the 2005 Budget to pass before the coalition had a senate majority on July 1 of that year). Ronan.evans 10:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I have already answered both those points. Adam 11:54, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I changed the section slightly to point out that Feilding would only hold balance if Labor/Greens/Dems did vote together. Hope it is acceptable to both sides. Ronan.evans 02:30, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Your latest edit works well. Ronan.evans 08:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I also changed the section. It was inconsistent, in that it at one point referred to Labor, the Greens and the Democrats as a group, while at other points it assumed that no Democrats were elected. While I don't believe that the Dems will get anyone elected, it's either one way or the other, and to keep it safe we should include them with that "left bloc". I also moved the list of Senators facing re-election. It's listed as a subchapter in the Senate section, but the rest of the section is then listed under that subchapter. Ben Raue (Talk) 08:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I tried to fix up this section, but talking about what it would require for the Coalition to lose majority, which is much simpler than talking about Labor/Democrats/Greens acting as a block which is clearly not true (eg GST). Also I added that if Labor wins the lower house they'll almost certainly have to work with a minority upper house. Sad mouse 18:23, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I quote the article:

   * Tasmania: 3.34
   * Victoria: 3.27
   * New South Wales: 3.20
   * South Australia: 3.12
   * Western Australia: 2.97
   * Queensland: 2.74

Notice the Non Labor/Democrats/Greens parties got only 3.73 quota's in Victoria (7 quotas roughly make a whole) yet still managed to get 4 seats. The assumption that 4 quotas are needed for 4 seats is incorrect. Frevidar 13:54, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You are wrong. The ALP and the Democrats have never won four seats between them at a half-Senate election in Victoria. Of course you don't need four quotas in primary votes to win four seats: you need four quotas after preferences. Adam 14:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Although the wording was confusing Frevidar is actually right, since he was talking about the Libs/Nats/FF, not ALP/Dem. Yes, it is obvious that the four quotas are after preferences, but that means that it is wrong for the article to use the primary votes to calculate the increase needed to gain seats from the government. JPD (talk) 14:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Anyway, a Labor majority in its own right is impossible. They would need to win 25 seats, which would require 4 out of 6 in 5 states. Winning 4 seats requires over 57% of the "preferred" vote... Chrismaltby 06:14, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Redistribution

Aside from Gwydir what will the proposals mean for the other named seats? (and how much will the final changes be different from the proposals?) J.J. Popplewick 12:04, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

A few things:

• • Greenway - goes from being very marginal Liberal to safe Liberal
  • Hughes - becomes more marginal Liberal
  • Macarthur - has shifted away from the ALP recently, now has been pushed out of reach by being pushed further out of Sydney.
  • Farrer - inclusion of Broken Hill makes it more friendly to ALP.
  • Macquarie - lost Hawkesbury and gained Lithgow and Bathurst, will become marginal and possible gain for ALP in 2007.
  • Calare - Peter Andren's seat has been split in two, making it difficult to predict how Andren would perform in the new Calare, which includes only half of the old Calare.
  • Apparently Lindsay (Penrith), Wentworth (Eastern Suburbs) and Bennelong (Ryde & Epping) have also become more marginal Liberal seats. Ben Raue (Talk) 14:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I haven't done any calculations yet (I am in Thailand this week), but that all seems to be correct. The only really important changes are the abolition of Gwydir, the conversion of Greenway into a safe Liberal seat and the change of Macquarie from Liberal to Labor. Hughes certainly becomes more winnable, particularly if Vale retires. The changes in Wentworth and Bennelong are fairly minor. Broken Hill only has 13,000 voters these days and doesn't make Farrer loseable for the Libs. I would think Andren can win Calare on any boundaries, although since he is from Bathurst he might run in Macquarie which would be very interesting. Adam 06:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Will there be any major changes in the final boundaries compared to the proposals? J.J. Popplewick 08:54, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

It has been known to happen. The abolition of Gwydir and the creation of a very big Parkes is open to challenge on community of interest grounds. An alternative would be abolishing Farrer and dividing it between Riverina and Parkes, while ceding parts of Parkes to Grydir. That would avoid creating a huge western NSW seat. Adam 03:31, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Here are some rough calculations of the new 2-party majorities in the most marginal government seats. They are literally "original research" (by me) so I suppose they can't be used, but I will leave that to others. Possibly if I post them to my own website someone else can cite them.

• Macquarie NSW (Kerry Bartlett, Lib) ALP 0.5 (changed by redistribution)
• Kingston SA (Kym Richardson) Liberal 0.1
• Bonner Qld (Ross Vasta) Liberal 1.0
• Parramatta NSW (Julie Owens, ALP) Liberal 1.0 (changed by redistribution)
• Wakefield SA (David Fawcett) Liberal 0.7
• Makin SA (Trish Draper) Liberal 0.9
• Braddon Tas (Mark Baker) Liberal 1.1
• Hasluck WA (Stuart Henry) Liberal 1.8
• Stirling WA (Michael Keenan) Liberal 2.0
• Wentworth NSW (Malcolm Turnbull) Liberal 2.5
• Bass Tas (Michael Ferguson) Liberal 2.6
• Solomon NT (David Tollner) Liberal 2.8
• Lindsay NSW (Jacquie Kelly) Liberal 2.9
• Moreton Qld (Gary Hardgrave) Liberal 3.0
• Eden-Monaro NSW (Gary Nairn) Liberal 3.3
• Bennelong NSW (John Howard Liberal 4.1
• Dobell NSW (Ross Ticehurst) Liberal 4.8
• McMillan Vic (Russell Broadbent) Liberal 4.9
• Blair Qld (Cameron Thompson) Liberal 5.0
• Page NSW (Ian Causley) National 5.5
• Wright Qld (new seat) National 6.0
• Longman Qld (Mal Brough) Liberal 6.0
• Herbert Qld (Peter Kindsay) Liberal 6.0

Two seats have changed sides - Macquarie from Lib to ALP and Parramatta vice versa. Thus Labor still needs 16 seats, everything down to Dobell. If Bartlett holds Macquarie Labor will need McMillian as well. Adam 04:06, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the Parliamentary Library's table of the 16 most marginal government seats, as grossly misreported in today's Australian:

Dobell (NSW) 4.8
Bennelong (NSW) 4.2
Eden-Monaro (NSW) 3.3
Lindsay (NSW) 2.9
Solomon (NT) 2.8
Moreton (Qld) 2.8
Bass (Tas) 2.6
Wentworth (NSW) 2.5
Stirling (WA) 2.0
Hasluck (WA) 1.8
Braddon (Tas) 1.1
Parramatta (NSW) 1.0
Makin (SA) 0.9
Wakefield (SA) 0.7
Bonner (Qld) 0.5
Kingston (SA) 0.1

Adam 06:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

no mention of Labor marginals

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

Government marginals are much more important, because they are the seats that the Opposition must win to gain government. When the redistribution is finished we can add a complete table. Adam 04:48, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

The way it is at the moment implies there are no seats that the Govnt can win, therefore it is unbalanced. Either have tables for both or neither.

Then do some research and put them in yourself. Adam 04:49, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe that government and opposition should be treated equally on an issue like this. The truth is that government marginals are more important than opposition marginals. If the government wins opposition seats, the composition of Parliament changes, but the government stays with the same party. Yet if the opposition wins enough seats, then the government will change. But I'll add a clause stating that Labor may well lose seats, etc. Ben Raue (Talk) 08:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

As it stands at the moment either Julie Owens, Labor Member for Parramatta, needs to be removed from the list and the 16th most marginal Coalition parties' seat added or we need to change the phrasing of the introductory paragraph: On the new boundaries, the following are the Coalition parties' 16 most marginal seats. Assuming a uniform swing, Labor will need to win all these seats to gain government. These seats are commonly called the "key marginals."WikiTownsvillian 10:05, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Preferred PM

Perhaps some detail on Howard vs Beazley would be good. Look at 19/07/06:Personality traits of Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition on http://www.newspoll.com.au/cgi-bin/polling/display_poll_data.pl?url_caller=latest&state=Any&mode=file&page=Search ... Howard has the numbers on decisiveness, vision, and understanding of major issues, whilst Beazley has the numbers on caring for people, being likeable, in touch with the voters, and more trustworthy. I was quite suprised myself at how well Beazley had done in those areas. Perhaps a preferred PM section should be written up in the article by someone, or do people prefer to keep the leaders of the parties out of it? Timeshift 18:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Can we use numbers from a commercial poll? There is no doubt that they are both excellent, though quite different, leaders. Elections nowadays are usually "presidential" style, with the campaign depending on the leader to a huge extent. Look at Latham last time around - any number of excellent Labor candidates musy have been grinding their teeth over the way he performed, and the Liberal newcomers elected then would probably be John Howard's strongest supporters. We should focus on the leaders, but it would be difficult to keep POV out of such intangibles as "likeableness" etc. I've fixed the image as best I can. --Jumbo