Talk:2007 Australian federal election

Archives
Archive One Archive Two

NOTICE at most66 days

OH what nonsense. 66 days is the maximum time after dissolution . dissolution need not occur at the time of notice.

In the current circumstance, if John Howard says today, September 21, 2007 that the election will be January 18,2008, then that is definitely what it will be and we will have more than 66 days notice.

202.92.33.210 —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 01:02, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

New Howard Pic

haha... you've got to be kidding... Timeshift 15:46, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Polling figures

I think the table is getting too big, does someone have the skills to turn it into a graph? Cheers, WikiTownsvillian 23:29, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

FWIW I don't have an issue with it's size. Timeshift 01:25, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

A graph would be a much more effective way to present it, whether the size is acceptable or not. JPD (talk) 17:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I disagree, I prefer the table, and I think the current size is fine. --210.49.145.34 21:23, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why newspoll is the one opinion poll that is shown in detail, while glossing over the others. Even wiki is following the media obsession's obsession with treating newspoll as the main authority of voting intentions. Ah well. While I don't think the table is too big, I'm wondering what it's going to be like in a couple of months. Once the election is called, newspoll will run weekly (heck I think they polled every five days or so last election) which will mean the table will stretch out over a page. This is assuming the table stays once the election is called/finished, of course, but you see my point. Once it isn't easily readable in the space of a screenshot, I think it becomes too big and unwieldy. GreenGopher 07:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Well Galaxy seems to like being the odd one out with bizarre polling like 53-47 (see http://www.ozpolitics.info/guide/elections/fed2007/polls2007/), Roy Morgan's polling is up and down more than the sun, and ACNeilsen only releases monthly polling. Newspoll is well respected, has been around for a while, and don't seem to produce bizarre polling (again see the above link for comparison). Timeshift 07:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think it would actually be good if we had a graph with all four polls, Ozpolitics style. The information would be more accessible, would be able to show trends, and wouldn't bias any single poll. Someone just needs to plug all the data into excel and create the graphs I guess. Recurring dreams 08:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with Recurring dreams. JPD (talk) 10:15, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That's why I made the ozpolitics link so prominent in the lead for the polling section of the article - it really is the best resource for polling and is kept up to date with each poll released, I have not seen it more than 24 hours out from a release of a poll. If someone could replicate the graph with their own skills and include all four, it would be better than the current newspoll table. Other tables of interest are further down the page, such as 1996v2007 polling comparisons, and entrail polling showing that the downward trend isn't nearly enough to get it close to 50/50 by the end of the year. Timeshift 16:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Added the ozpolitics 2pp graph with OzPolitics creator's (Bryan Palmer) permission. Timeshift 23:19, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Excellent. Maybe we can increase the size a little? Recurring dreams 23:38, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Up to you, I wouldn't object. I left it at default thumb size to leave it up to the user's browser's prefs. Timeshift 23:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I've noticed Bryan at OzPolitics has done some new graphing for anyone interested... this and this should be of particular interest. Timeshift 08:47, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

An updated betting graph has been put up recently as well. Eagerly anticipating tomorrow's Newspoll! Recurring dreams 08:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The Australian publish it on their website the night before - which is tonight ;-) Timeshift 08:55, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Per the page, Newspoll has 55% ALP 2PP down 4%. PPM has Rudd 48% steady, Howard 38% up 1%. Timeshift 19:50, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I can't say i'm at all a fan of the quite frankly poorly designed table that the ozpolitics one was replaced with. Timeshift 17:45, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Care to add some details of how it is poorly designed? That's the least you could do, seeing as we don't have a properly licensed version. If it's easier to make your own or ask for relevant permission, fine, just don't sit there sniping. JPD (talk) 18:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

The layout is dodgy. Compare to Bryan's. The dates, the fonts, the lines themselves, it just seems very "not right" compared to his. I don't have the graphing skills to advise how to improve. I'm already over it, despite the fact the quality of the article has just been drawn back. Frankly, I don't care to understand the policy, i'll keep doing as I do, and you keep up your image-deleting. Timeshift 18:29, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone who is interested can see my reply to this comment at User talk:JPD. I can't take seriously a critique that doesn't bother to say more than "dodgy" or "not right", but if someone else has specific concerns, I'm sure we could improve the image. JPD (talk) 18:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Have added a section to image page advising of outstanding polling that requires adding to the 2pp graph. Timeshift 00:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

POV checks?

Is someone keeping tabs on the addresses of editors here? Readers' confidence in the article, not to mention the whole project, will be significantly eroded if paid political functionaries are later discovered to have tweaked this article. Tony 09:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Whom is this directed toward and exactly where is the POV in the election article? It's one of the most scrutinised articles on wikipedia, i'd guess more or less everyone in the project has it on their watchlist. What issues do you take with the article? Timeshift 09:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

However if you refer to all the new members who've signed up since Downer's "we should fire people up to edit them" remark (see my user page) and regularly attack pages such as the one currently going on at Kevin Rudd, then yes I agree with you. Not sure about this page though. Timeshift 10:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I guess I'm wondering whether the newly available site that can be used to exposed skullduggery is being used systematically to protect WP from underhand contributions. Tony 10:21, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think they'd dare now. Anyway, regular editors have been keeping a good eye on this page for a while now. Recurring dreams 10:24, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

copy-edit

I've run through the first few sections. Please consider my inline queries (sorry to be messy). Change in percentage or comparison of percentages needs to be expressed in terms of percentage points (Labor was 4 points ahead); after the first occurrence, you can abbreviate it to point. See MOS. Tony 11:01, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

blog site admissable?

I find this one interesting—updated at least once a week, it has a running average of the five major bookies. Is it appropriate to include it in the external links? http://www.ozpolitics.info/blog/category/betting-market Tony 11:05, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

article title

Any reason why this and other past Australian federal election articles are called "general election" in the article name and not "federal elections" as they are almost universally refered to? I don't think i've ever seen it called a 'general' election. Articles in other federal systems use 'federal election'; i.e Canadian federal election, 2006 and German federal election, 2005. Perhaps the Canadian article presents a good comprimise? (see its first sentence) Cheers. 58.106.28.119 12:47, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree with you as do the vast majority of us. Unfortunately a purposely troublesome user by the name of Joestella takes delight in arguing stupid points like this just because they may be technically right. WP:IAR doesn't exist when he's around it seems. Timeshift 14:10, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

From recollection the various election articles were at "Australian legislative election, year" but a lot of people found this deeply confusing for a parliamentary government system. "General election" is the term used in the UK and I think the term got transferred to other countries' articles. A glance at Category:2007 elections, without looking at every individual article, suggests that "general election" is the common standard except for where the election explicitly decides a single tier/organ of government.

One absolute priority must be that this article has the same format as its fellows. And that may be trickier than it seems - Australia is unusual as there are four different types of elections that are the fellows to this one - House, House & 1/2 Senate, 1/2 Senate alone or Double Dissolution. This set-up is rare - usally either the upper house isn't directly elected or its elections are clearly separated from the lower house. And I think the most notable point will be who forms the government - i.e. who wins the lower house (the Dismissal aside) - and so having names that change on the basis of how much of the Senate was elected at the same time would just confuse readers. Timrollpickering 21:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

If the "general election" terminology does have a British origin, then it should be deprecated as soon as possible. Britain has a very different constitutional structure, being a unitary state and not a federal one.

"Federal" would be more appropriate. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 10:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I would support the change, but Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics is the place to discuss a question like this which impacts many articles. You can see it discussed in the archive at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics/Archive_2#Renaming_of_.5B.2Fgeneral_election.2F.5D_to_.5B.2Ffederal.2F.5D_and_.5B.2Fstate_election.2F.5D, in particular a post by Orderinchaos which surveyed the usage by all electoral commissions in Australia. I think the consensus was to get rid of "general", but no one cared enough to change it. Peter Ballard 12:15, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Appreciate that this isn't the appropriately place to discuss it, but since no other avenue is open I'll say it here anyway. It's interesting that even the AEC refers to this election as the '2007 federal election' - I'm guessing because that's what everybody thinks of it as. [1]. Perhaps somebody could rekindle the discussion held earlier in the year before the election is actually held, as this article will almost certainly make the front page 'news' section of wikipedia come post-election day (as most other notable elections do) and federal would make much more sense to the casual reader. Just my thinking. GreenGopher 11:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussion continuing @ Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics#title_of_election_articles 58.106.24.254 05:41, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Election date

Does anyone else think this section, being expanded by anons, is way too long-winded and will cause the average reader to lose interest? The detail previous was perfectly sufficient IMHO. Timeshift 01:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Yep - all there really needs to be at this stage of the electoral cycle is a paragraph on the constitutional requirements, and a paragraph stating Howard's intention to hold the election by early Decemeber 2007. The rest of the section has become POV orientated (would anybody seriously base their vote on how hot the weather is?)

Either way, the entire section gets the chop in (hopefully) a week or two when the election is called. One hopes it will be sooner rather then later, this phony election campaign is driving me nuts. GreenGopher 04:29, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Most likely there will be an announcement of polling day very soon, and the notice will be minimal. That is, the election day will be the first Saturday that is more than 32 days after the day the election is announced. It is most likely that the Prime Minister will not irritate voters by sending them to vote during December or January. Since the inaugural 1901 federal election, no election has ever been called for a January date. The Australian school holidays occurring during December and January, and temperatures at their hottest, and the voters may vote based on their annoyance on choice of polling day. - totally POV/OR. Why people want to keep this section is beyond me. Timeshift 08:36, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've undone the anon changes again. Not only was it too long winded, it's full of speculation and bizarrely worded statements. JPD (talk) 10:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

I've rewritten the section, it was driving me nuts before. Basically, I cut it down to a couple of paragraphs and added in the GG bit. Feel free to revert accordingly if it's now too short GreenGopher 11:15, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Perfect. Can we please all ensure it doesn't get changed again by anons until there's some developments. Timeshift 12:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Constitutionally, the election could be held in January 2008. Auroranorth 12:18, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep - the article says as such in the third or fourth paragraph. The election date speculation section is a bit unwieldy. but it's there. GreenGopher 12:48, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The PM announces the election date. The PM has stated the election will take place by early December at the latest. The technicality of Jan 2008 has been mentioned. Stop tripping over yourselves people. Timeshift 23:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed with Timeshift, the PM has explicitly ruled out a January election in media statements. Orderinchaos 23:27, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Should this section go now or at least be radically reduced, now that the election has been called? Recurring dreams 02:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Radically reduced. Is still relevant as the speculation about the election date was at a level of national notability, rather than just journos sounding off as is usually the case. There is even talk coming out of private polling that the amount of uncertainty about the election date will itself have an impact on the standing of some key politicians and their chances of success from the apathetic end of the electorate - I'll have to wait for RS on that though. Orderinchaos 02:31, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

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)

• 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)