Talk:2007 Australian federal election: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 06:00, 25 July 2006

Latest revision as of 10:44, 2 January 2025

Line 1:

{{Talk header}}

{{WP Australia|class=start|importance=mid|politics=yes}}

{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|1=

{{WikiProject Australia|importance=high|politics=yes|politics-importance=Top}}

[[Talk:Australian legislative election, 2007/Archive1]]

{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}}

{{WikiProject Politics|importance=}}

== 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.[[User:203.3.176.10|203.3.176.10]] 04:09, 8 June 2006 (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"

--[[User:Kieran Bennett|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. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 11:47, 28 June 2006 (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?)

[[User:J.J. Popplewick|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. [[User:Braue|Ben Raue]] ([[User Talk:Braue|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. [[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 06:48, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

----

Will there be any major changes in the final boundaries compared to the proposals? [[User:J.J. Popplewick|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. [[User:Adam Carr|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. [[User:Adam Carr|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<br>

Bennelong (NSW) 4.2 <br>

Eden-Monaro (NSW) 3.3<br>

Lindsay (NSW) 2.9 <br>

Solomon (NT) 2.8 <br>

Moreton (Qld) 2.8 <br>

Bass (Tas) 2.6 <br>

Wentworth (NSW) 2.5 <br>

Stirling (WA) 2.0 <br>

Hasluck (WA) 1.8 <br>

Braddon (Tas) 1.1 <br>

Parramatta (NSW) 1.0<br>

Makin (SA) 0.9 <br>

Wakefield (SA) 0.7 <br>

Bonner (Qld) 0.5 <br>

Kingston (SA) 0.1 <br>

[[User:Adam Carr|Adam]] 06:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)