User talk:Timeshift9

LOL

Archives
Archive One (Apr06-Dec06) Archive Two (Jan07-Apr07) Archive Three (Apr07-Sep07) Archive Four (Sep07-Dec07) Archive Five (Dec07-Jun08) Archive Six (Jun08-Oct09) Archive Seven (Oct09-May10) Archive Eight (May10-Aug10) Archive Nine (Aug10-May11) Archive Ten (May11-Sep12) Archive Eleven (Sep12-May13)

Welcome to my talk page, where you are welcome to leave a message at the bottom of this page for any reason at all and I will attempt to respond ASAP. I try to remember to respond on your talk page, and I mostly do, but if you leave a message here and for some reason i'm not replying, perhaps check back here from time to time :-)

3,007 watchlist articles and counting :)

There is no cabal. Mmmm, cabal....

SA

May interest you. Just as long as you don't wear a blue tie while reading it. --Surturz (talk) 02:03, 13 June 2013 (UTC)

Pfft, I check Antony's blog every day :P Timeshift (talk) 07:04, 14 June 2013 (UTC)

Australian Labor Party leadership spill, June 2013 should settle the ALP leadership until at least 9:30pm. Teh lulz! --Surturz (talk) 07:23, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

If Gillard wins, it won't settle anything. If Rudd wins, it's settled until at least the next election. I expect Rudd to win, and what's more, consign Abbott to the dustbin of history come September. You heard it here first! :P Timeshift (talk) 07:26, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

Possibly, if the ALP caucus haven't lynched KRudd before then. --Surturz (talk) 08:25, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

And Rudd is PM again. Timeshift (talk) 09:11, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

LOLZ. Do you think the Greens will go for the jugular and campaign hard in safe Labor seats? --Surturz (talk) 13:48, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

LOLZ? Do I sense a hint of insecurity? The leadership is settled as the loser is leaving parliament in a couple of months... what's the point? If there's no more backstabbing then people won't care - look at Turnbull/Abbott. Oh, was it you a year or so ago that was sure we'd see the next election with Gillard/Abbott as leaders and there'd be no change? Roy Morgan 50-50, hah! The election is there for the taking! As for the Greens, don't they always? Timeshift (talk) 07:03, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, they had no chance under Gillard, I agree with you there. They have a better chance under Rudd, but I think it could go the other way and switching to Rudd could make the drubbing even worse. NSW has seen this musical chairs before at the state level, I think that will swing away because of the change. Qld probably swing to ALP as a result because of the local factor. Other states, I don't know. Depends a lot on whether Rudd's return is seen as justice by the electorate. There is a lot of footage of senior ALP members publicly trash-talking about Rudd. ALP faces electors would recognise. Libs have already put out ads.

I guess the Greens do always target Labor seats. Normally I would say that minor parties will get decimated at this election, but Greens are a different beast to Democrats, DLP, etc. Greens are a true ideological party in their own right, not just a splinter off a main party. --Surturz (talk) 07:52, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

If trash talking didn't damage Abbott when he took over from Turnbull, it won't damage Rudd. Speaking of trash talking, seen Abbott since then? He comes across as a man stuck in the past, still with little to no policy, against another man who's had a wrong righted, and this is what all you Liberals have feared. Did you honestly believe there's any swinging voters who wanted to vote Abbott in rather than Gillard out? How long until Turnbull challenges? Have you seen the polls yet? Both give a Labor majority of seats. What utterly terrible media reporting, but really, that's par for the course in this term of parliament. Bearing in mind swings aren't equal (but if we're having to say that then something's changed)... if you believe ReachTEL, on a state-by-state basis Labor comes out with a "slight majority" of seats. If you believe Roy Morgan which can easily be calculated[1][2][3], Labor loses 3 in NSW, 3 in Vic (borderline 4), gains 9 in QLD, 0 change in WA, SA, Tasmania. Most likely 1 gain in NT, but that's irrelevant, cause we can all do 3+4-9. So Mr Surtz... for the lulz? What did I say above at 7:26am 26/6/13? Yeah, go eat some humble pie. Game on. Timeshift (talk) 07:05, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh, and lulz. Gore? :D Timeshift (talk) 11:20, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh please, Turnbull inventing the Internet was clearly a joke - the video leaves no doubt. I guess the biggest win for you personally is that you can start talking about the polls again :-) It must have been a sad day for you when Abbott started leading Preferred PM. I'm waiting for newspoll - I don't think those instant polls in reaction to events are reliable at all (offtopic: do you read Mumble Blog on the Oz? [4] I think you'd like it - he's been predicting a Rudd win for months and months, and hates Abbott at least as much as you do. You can pretend to your hippie friends that you're doing something less embarrassing than reading the Oz... like browsing straight porn or something :-). Rudd definitely allows the hope of victory to the ALP - under Gillard there was none. On the other hand, the ALP must now pre-select a whole bunch of candidates due to Gillard supporters leaving (Combet just announced he won't contest the election!) and start campaigning in seats they'd written off - remember they have to WIN seats to stay in government. Contrast this with the Coalition who mostly finished their preselections last year and have been campaigning solidly in seats since the beginning of the year and earlier. Also look at seats like Chifley - the Lib candidate there has been doorknocking all year and now Ed Husic looks like he'll be made a Minister - which will take him away from campaigning. If Rudd has any sense he'll push the election back to Nov 30. Gives him another 2.5 months. I am fairly confident, however, that Rudd will self-combust by then. He hasn't changed much as far as I can see, intentionally turning up late to press conferences and saying crazy stuff for cheap headlines like his recent Konfrontasi comments. Combet leaving! Still can't get over that. He was willing to follow Gillard into defeat but not Rudd into your theoretical victory? Why? --Surturz (talk) 12:19, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

You'd be surprised how much swinging voters don't care about past gaffes and indiscretions - you need look no further than Abbott. Galaxy out and result slotted nicely between Roy Morgan and ReachTEL :D Regardless of whether or not Rudd "has changed", the fact parliament has concluded severely limits any ability for the Libs to find any new material. How many Libs thought we'd see this sort of seismic shift in the polls a week ago? Three polls all giving Labor a slight majority of seats. I really do hope the Libs maintain this new irrelevant look and keep banging on about the Rudd/Gillard history, because the country has moved on since. Timeshift (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Newspoll has Coalition down to 51% 2PP. So I guess that confirms the ReachTEL result. Game on, as you say. --Surturz (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

So considering QLD, another slight Labor majority? Ooh, another Roy Morgan out, this time Labor 51-49 Coalition. Game on! Serves the Libs right for sitting on their hands by putting their faith in Abbott's do-nothing anti-Gillard approach. Any other leader would have realised you can't rely on circumstances - not our Abbott. Is this indicative of the approach Abbott would take if he became PM? Timeshift (talk) 07:25, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

BludgerTrack - all polls combined to extract seat outcomes on a state-by-state basis (per what I said above). Labor 74 + Bandt + Wilkie, Coalition 73 + Katter (if we disregard the fact that Katter said he would support Rudd over Abbott). And that's ignoring Roy Morgan's Tasmania polling for statewide Labor retain! Regardless of the outcome, it now seems a near-certainty that the next Senate remains a Green balance of power. Come back Surtz! Timeshift (talk) 09:11, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

And re Konfrontasi, Mark Kenny (and Laura Tingle) on Insiders last week put it best when he referred to it as a 'calculated' overreach. I actually heard what Rudd said in full unlike many. It's great to see Rudd's cut-through attack versus Abbott's deer-in-headlights approach... it's times like this that really reveal the low level of intelligence Abbott has. Timeshift (talk) 00:17, 6 July 2013 (UTC)

Roy Morgan 54.5 percent federal Labor 2PP - ho hum. "If an election were held today, it would be a blood-slaughter for the Coalition!" :P Timeshift (talk) 12:00, 8 July 2013 (UTC)

You must be elated to be able to talk about the polls again :-) I think there is a lot of anti-Gillard catharsis in the poll results. Rudd has had a good week or two too in the media, even the Oz is giving him a honeymoon (though they've been running some stories on pink batts). If Rudd does win it will be a sign that Oz elections really have turned "presidential". I don't know how you can assert that Abbott is of low intellect. He has an MA from Oxford as a Rhodes scholar. --Surturz (talk) 01:04, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

You've already said that :P News Ltd have continued to do everything to put Rudd in a bad light, i'm not sure what you're reading. Let's be honest - Rudd's personal polling isn't spectacular, they're not even as high as Gillard's initial personal ratings. What's different? The polls have finally caught up with the reality of Abbott - 35% approval, 55% disapproval. Rudd got sacked for those ratings while Abbott's numbers were not anywhere near as bad. The vote has changed so much because now people have had nearly four years of Abbott in their faces and they too now know how much of a ****er he is.... now they know, and can vote for an alternative to Abbott. Anti-Gillard... anti-Abbott! Welcome to the present. As for Abbott's intellect, Rhodes scholar doesn't mean much - does it? When Abbott's on the back foot he simply cannot handle it. And as for presidential, fair shake of the sauce bottle! Which leader is it that keeps telling Australians they elect their leader and not the parliament? And which leader stands in front of his adorning crowds at rallies as if he were running for US president? C'mon Surtz, pull the other one. Did you enjoy the Newspoll Preferred PM 53-31 today? Turnbull must be licking his lips. Timeshift (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

A long overdue section break

Oh I am not asserting that the Libs' campaign is any less presidential. I think we both think that parliament should return to its responsible government roots. A bit hard for that when the ALP don't allow crossing the floor though. Gillard's authority was stillborn though when she failed to win a majority at 2010. Abbott's claims that she had lost legitimacy were devastating to her, though it is backfiring a bit now that Rudd has returned, since claiming that Gillard took the PMship illegitimately has the implication that Rudd is the legitimate PM. I think no matter who wins the election this year, Gillard's legislative legacy will be pulled apart. In this, Rudd will probably be more keen to destroy her legacy than Abbott. If Rudd wins, I betcha NDIS/DisabilityCare gets renamed pretty quickly. I don't think Turnbull will challenge. Lefties love him, but they wouldn't vote for him. --Surturz (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The ALP binding vote has always existed, and without it is possible that we wouldn't have been graced with the Fisher Labor 1910-13 government and everything that came with it. But that's another topic and so old that it has no relevance to presidential campaigns. Anywho... for the past 3 years we've seen Rudd and Turnbull preferred 2-to-1 in polls over Gillard and Abbott, Labor has eaten their humble pie, and if the Liberals have any brains they will do the same. It's funny listening to Abbott and how both Rudd and Gillard should have but shouldn't have been sacked. What does he actually believe? Climate change is real and the best way to tackle it is with a tax? Legacies can only be changed so much... Gillard successfully completed a term of hung parliament with six crossbenchers and passed more legislation than most governments could only dream of. Menzies, the last hung parliament, only made it half a term with two independents before giving the PMship to the Country Party before the entire thing fell in a heap. NDIS... who brought Medicare about? Though not technically correct, Gough Whitlam comes to mind. Let's move on from Gillard, she's retiring at the impending election, this is about Rudd and Abbott (and QLD and NSW) now :) As for Turnbull, don't think in such black and white terms. I know swinging voters who don't have particular patterns but say they would vote for Turnbull in a second. Same with Rudd. Wake up, this is 21st century. Timeshift (talk) 07:57, 9 July 2013 (UTC)

The second batch of polling since Kevin Rudd’s leadership takeover has been even more encouraging for Labor than the first, pushing them into the lead on both the BludgerTrack two-party vote and seat projection - lol! "AMR Research has a national online poll of 1107 which turns the tables on the Liberals by showing Labor 51-49 ahead on the present arrangement, but 57-43 behind if Malcolm Turnbull were leader" - LOL! :D Just reinforces everything i've said above that you continue to deny ;) Considering that governments almost always govern with 2PP polling anywhere between 47 to 53 percent, it's interesting that Labor is doing so well. What could explain it? Perhaps, just perhaps, Abbott? Timeshift (talk) 23:57, 10 July 2013 (UTC)

Oh boo hoo Surtz. No reply? Timeshift (talk) 04:05, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

Ahh, Oz and UK tories... still attempting to make comparisons between labour movements and cigarette companies. Disgusting. Timeshift (talk) 04:14, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

And wasn't it amusing when Abbott in the past week went from believing in climate change back to no climate change at all again. Abbott's simply terrible when his back's against the wall. Timeshift (talk) 04:16, 18 July 2013 (UTC)

So Labor rises to 50-50 in Galaxy, and for the first time in a decade, comes from way behind, to 40-38, on the question of best party to handle asylum seekers. Ho hum Surtz? All anti-Gillard isn't it. Lol :) Timeshift (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

Poor abandoned Timeshift... Surtz don't love him anymore ;( Timeshift (talk) 07:15, 29 July 2013 (UTC)

Surturz would go gay for Timeshift

Heh. This election needs more lulz. Suppository was funny, but I want moar. --Surturz (talk) 04:10, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Oh, you're back! You do still love me! The funniest moment of the campaign so far for me was on Q&A when Joe Hockey tried to claim Medicare as a Liberal creation. I couldn't stop laughing for a good 10 seconds on that one! Timeshift (talk) 07:03, 21 August 2013 (UTC)

Why didn't you tell me that The Hollowmen was so good?! I've only just discovered it. I think it would be fair to say that it is in the same league as The Games and could even be compared to Yes minister. --Surturz (talk) 04:56, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Nice diversion - just like when debating someone you tell them to shut up because you have no decent comeback :D Timeshift (talk) 06:57, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

So when you've been accepting big tobacco donations for the past 3 years, and 2 weeks before an election you say you won't be taking any more big tobacco donations, how does that look? Will they be sending all the donations back? Is it an admission they should never have accepted them in the first place? C'mon Surtz, let's increase the quality of debate! Unless your side isn't good at that? (That was a rhetorical question :) Timeshift (talk) 06:59, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

And finally - how can the Libs increase spending, cut taxes, AND decrease debt? Hockeynomics magic pudding. Saul Eslake says a $30b black hole for the Libs. The debate in some ways was more entertaining in what Abbott didn't say. Timeshift (talk) 07:47, 22 August 2013 (UTC)

Pretty rich Rudd pressuring Abbott on costings when his government has never released a costing that proved within ten billion of the right number. Like I've said before, the shadow of 1993 runs long... Abbott was Hewson's press secretary. No way he'll be gulled into nominating big cuts or taxes before the election. I don't like it, I'd prefer fully costed policies from both sides, but that is the way the game is played. Abbott would be mad to do a Hewson. As for tobacco money - don't really have an opinion here. I will observe that the changes to campaign financing (very low reportable thresholds) have made it much harder to raise funds from members of the public and easier for big organisations to donate. Probably exactly as the ALP intended, since the ALP is funded by the unions. --Surturz (talk) 01:00, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

Don't people have a right to know where Abbott will cut, as you've just admitted as much? Timeshift (talk) 06:51, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

People have a right to vote as they wish. If the lack of costings affects their vote, so be it. Election promises are not binding, so to say that there is a requirement that certain promises must be made by candidates is illogical. It's a trade-off between an increase in chances of winning the election vs. having a mandate to make cuts after the election. The ALP opposed the GST even though Howard had a mandate to introduce it, so the benefit of having a mandate for unpopular decisions is arguable anyway. --Surturz (talk) 07:06, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

So ronery... How are those opinion polls working for you? Mumble has backflipped on his prediction of a Rudd victory.[5] --Surturz (talk) 06:57, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Abbott Government

Of course people have a right to vote how they wish, but if you're not going to say what you'll cut before the election, what gives them a mandate to cut things they didn't say after the election? Can we already see Tony saying his commission of audit and the untold cuts that will go with it are part of his mandate? Of course. Let's announce an internet filtering policy and then immediately scrap it a few days before an election, what a bright idea! A distraction from talk of untold cuts? Sorry I haven't responded until now, i've had limited time. Looks like incumbent Murdoch will win another term! I'm proud of Labor's six years of legislative achievements, Australia is a much better society than six years ago, and more was done in the past six years than the eleven years prior. FYI I brought my senate.io ballot paper with me, voted both above and below the line, Hanson-Young first, Penny Wong second, Xenophon third, remaining Labor ticket, remaining Green ticket, palatable minors including Xeno's remaining ticket, unknowns, Palmer/Katter, Liberals sans Bernardi, nutjobs including Family First sans Day, then Day, then Bernardi last at 73 ;) Greens, Labor, Socialist, Palmer, Liberal, Family First in the lower (Adelaide). You? Kate Ellis looks set to retain for a fourth term :) I'd go straight for Ellis, but I wouldn't be able to get Garcia out of my head :D Timeshift (talk) 23:38, 6 September 2013 (UTC) So the coalition did worse than expected, didn't even get to the 1996 result and went backwards in the Senate, and, they're going to have to negotiate with a larger and more varied crossbench than the previous government! "The danger as we go into the last hours of this campaign, is that people will dilly dally with independents and minor party candidates. Sure they might be fun, sure they might be different." I even Abbott would agree he made a mistake with that. Imagine what could have been possible under Turnbull. Timeshift (talk) 02:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

The win may not have been as large as expected, but it is still a solid win, and bigger than Rudd's victory in 2007 I believe. The scale of it is hidden by the close election of 2010 - if the ALP had had a ten seat majority, then the Liberal win would have seemed larger, because more seats would have changed hands. Rudd's jubilation that the election was only a slaughter and not a massacre was bizarre.

Not sure why you like Penny Wong. She achieved nothing as Climate Change minister, achieved nothing as Finance Minister, and betrayed Gillard at the end. Her only competence is public speaking.

Funny story about my voting - I entered the booth as a scrutineer just to check everything was okay but noticed that the line was short, so decided to vote. Scrutineers aren't allowed to take party materials into the booth, so despite handing out how-to-votes all day I accidentally had to vote without one and make my own mind up about lower house preferences! (not that it made a difference, our candidate won so my preferences didn't matter). I voted above the line in the Senate. The Senate voting system is broken and needs change IMHO. 110 candidates in NSW, what a farce. I support Optional Preferential Voting. They should raise the bar on nominations, and allow above-the-line preferencing too. Also eliminate the undemocratic above-the-line preference tickets lodged with the AEC.

I think not having complete control of the Senate is actually a good thing. It allows bad legislation to be amended or quietly dropped.

The big story of the day I think is the further erosion of the two-party system. I believe it is the lack of respect that the Libs and ALP show each other nowadays that is causing that. The majors need to promote each other as worthy opponents, and stop all the hysterical personality politics. It just plays into the hands of the Greens, the (shudder) Palmer United Party, and their ilk. --Surturz (talk) 02:04, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

You went backwards in the Senate both in votes and seats. In the house, you didn't even get to 1996 results let alone 1975. Spin how you want, doesn't change the facts :) I support only one change to the Senate system and it's all that is needed to ensure the current democratic processes sans group voting ticket manipulation - a 5% threshold. Timeshift (talk) 08:57, 10 September 2013 (UTC)

Senate vote was much, much, worse for the ALP-Greens than it was for the Coalition. Coalition lost about 1% while the ALP-Greens combined lost 9%. I wonder if the Coalition even actually lost any votes in voter sentiment, considering that the LDP certainly picked up hundreds of thousands of Coalition votes due to confusion on the NSW ballot paper. The current Senate requires either the ALP or Greens to vote with the Coalition for legislation to be passed. The new Senate will have lots of different options for the Coalition to pass legislation (ALP, or Greens, or any 6 of the expected 8 minor party senators).

I'm not sure why you are trying to paint this is as a bad result for the Coalition. It's a solid win. It's not a record-breaking win, but it is a better win than the last two ALP victories. Abbott continues to confound the Left. If they don't start acknowledging his abilities soon, they'll be in Opposition for a long time. Pinning your hopes on the opponent falling over, instead of relying on your own strengths is not a viable long-term strategy.

OTOH the Greens have come of age in this election. All they had to do was survive: they did that and even kept Melbourne. I was wrong in predicting that they'd be destroyed in a similar manner to the Democrats after the latter voted for the GST. The vote is one thing, but the ongoing loss of new political activists to the Greens is the real existential threat to the ALP. --Surturz (talk) 01:18, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

of course labor went backward, they lost government. The coalition won, but went backwards in the senate. Big difference! Timeshift (talk) 01:53, 11 September 2013 (UTC)

I have stolen your user box :-)

Apparently not having a user page was incriminating somehow.

Ooh, and i've stolen one of yours too :D Timeshift (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

I saw that. Djapa Owen (talk) 11:40, 27 June 2013 (UTC)

This [6] Such charisma. Djapa Owen (talk) 01:16, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

Hmmm, reminds me of the vacuum cleaner commercial here with the Rudd impersonator. These small business/entrepreneurial types just want to use their money in attempts to take the wind out of his sails ;) Timeshift (talk) 09:18, 3 July 2013 (UTC)

Files missing description details

Dear uploader: The media files you uploaded as:

• File:Sturt1949.PNG
• File:Sturt1967.PNG

are missing a description and/or other details on their image description pages. If possible, please add this information. This will help other editors make better use of the images, and they will be more informative to readers.

If you have any questions, please see Help:Image page. Thank you. Message delivered by Theo's Little Bot (opt-out) 15:50, 1 July 2013 (UTC)

July 2013

Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that your edit to Prime Ministers Avenue may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 "[]"s. If you have, don't worry, just edit the page again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on my operator's talk page.

List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

• </ref> and it is said that Paul Keating was unhappy with his bust's weak chin and pointy nose.<ref>[http://probus.realviewdigital.com/?iid=63350&startpage=page0000024&xml=Probus_V1 Page 24, Boom Boom

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 00:50, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

... a useful bot!? Timeshift (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

List of Whips

I have created a list of Liberal whips with an eye toward creating lists for each party. Please comment on the best way to incorporate it into the article space at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Australian politics#List of Whips. -Rrius (talk) 03:59, 4 August 2013 (UTC)

Is anyone surprised the wall punching tantrums were real?

"News Ltd has publicly apologised to a former student politician who was branded a serial liar by Liberal powerbroker Michael Kroger after she had accused Opposition Leader Tony Abbott of physically intimidating her." http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/news-ltd-apologises-to-barbara-ramjan-over-tony-abbott-punch-story-20130805-2r8si.html#ixzz2b4cQhCRu

‎Djapa84, the only ones who ever claimed it wasn't real were always in the Liberal brigade. What would you do if the guy you wanted to become PM did that? Nothing feasible to do but to deny it. Timeshift (talk) 07:02, 5 August 2013 (UTC)

Seats in doubt

Please do not keep adding the seats in doubt. Discuss the issue on the talk page As to which seats these include, you might want to look at the ABC page. StAnselm (talk) 06:01, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

And this page is a list of "close seats" not "seats in doubt". StAnselm (talk) 06:07, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Despite Rob Mitchell being ahead by only 66 votes, he and Petrovich are both on 50.00% of the TPP. This, therefore, makes the seat in doubt as neither the incumbent nor the contestant are ahead. http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/mcew/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas11213 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

Extreme left-wing bias on userpage

Dear Timeshift9. I am an avid reader of Wikipedia and I recently noticed your Userpage with its extraordinary attacks on Rupert Murdoch and Tony Abbott. I cannot see how your political musings are related to Wikipedia and I am concerned that they bring the site into disrepute and bring into question the political neutrality of Wikipedia, especially when you edit many pages related to Australian politics. I have done some research and I think your user page is a breach of Wikipedia policies, so I would kindly ask you to take it down and cease editing pages relating to Australian politics

Thank you in advance

Mark (Conservativecat)Conservativecat (talk) 14:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Policies breached: WP:UP#GAMES

WP:UP#POLEMIC

WP:UP#PROMO

After 3 afd keeps over the years, youve officially got buckleys now :) Timeshift (talk) 21:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

Wow, you must have a fan, to warrant WP:SPA attention[7]! :-) --Surturz (talk) 03:08, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Everyone, including you should play by the rules. Would you be happy if I filled by userpage with right-wing bile and conspiracy theories? Let's try and have some consistency here. Conservativecat (talk) 03:24, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have no idea about the 'afd keeps' but the content of your userpage is in breach of the spirit and the letter of the rules. It's interesting you also resort to personal abuse against me, surely another breach of those tiresome Wikipedia policies? Conservativecat (talk) 03:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

This is a well-trodden path, Shifty is not going to delete the content voluntarily. So take it to Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Timeshift9 (4th nomination) if you want to take this further (instructions here). I would suggest, however, that if you don't like what Timeshift9 has on his userpage, don't read it. --Surturz (talk) 04:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I have many fans surtz ;) Timeshift (talk) 04:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

There seems to be some protection racket here. 'Shifty' and 'I have many fans'. Why bother about any rules if you are not prepared to follow even the most basic ones? Conservativecat (talk) 06:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Shifty and Suturz working together in a protection racket, eh? ROTFLMAO! HiLo48 (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Just let me know Timeshift9 - what gives you the right to stick up the middle finger to the rules and to political impartiality? Conservativecat (talk) 06:40, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

The fact it's survived 3 deletion attempts? As i've said, you've officially got Buckleys now. It is my userpage. Go and do something more productive. Or continue to waste your time. Your choice. But thanks for dropping by and commenting like others have done, it just justifies how hard-hitting the truth on my userpage is :) Timeshift (talk) 06:50, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Why do you have to post it here? Just to upset people? How mature. It is irrelevant to the site and is in clear unavoidable breach of the spirit and letter of the rules. Why do you get to pick and choose which rules you wish to obey — Preceding unsigned comment added by Conservativecat (talk • contribs) 06:53, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying I upset you? Maybe the truth hurts? Three failed deletion attempts says it all. My userpage isn't going anywhere and you should get used to it. Timeshift (talk) 06:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

And yes Surtz, funny how it's always the WP:SPAs that come after my userpage :) Timeshift (talk) 06:58, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Your arrogant attitude is disgusting. It shows the absolute contempt for which you hold this site in. Your comments are opinions and not facts. Most of all, they are against the rules of this site. Conservativecat (talk) 07:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Three failed deletion attempts says otherwise. Timeshift (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Interesting approach you have to freedom of speech, simply deleting some of my comments here on your talkpage. Astounding. Conservativecat (talk) 07:01, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I removed your comment from an above section that went off of it's topic. I havent changed any of your comments in this section. But as it's my userpage, i'm free to clear my entire page of any traces of you if I wish to do so. It's extremely clear that you do not understand the difference between articles on wikipedia and userpages on wikipedia. Now as I said, go and find something productive to do. Timeshift (talk) 07:03, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you think I should lodge a formal complaint about the extreme right wing bias in Conservativecat's choice of user name? HiLo48 (talk) 07:19, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please try and be serious. Conservativecat (talk) 07:23, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL HiLo48 (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Action concerning your User page

Dear Timeshift 9, I have politely attempted to resolve this issue with you. I have brought your attention to numerous policies prohibiting the way in which you are making use of your User page, which is bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. They include WP:NOTOPINION, 'Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing. This applies to articles, categories, templates, talk page discussions, and user pages - WP:SOAP, WP:UP#GAMES, WP:UP#PROMO and WP:UP#POLEMIC.

I have respectfully asked you to address this issue, using guidance which states 'The best option if there is a concern with a user's page is to draw their attention to the matter via their talk page and let them edit it themselves, if they are agreeable'. Sadly, you have adopted a highly arrogant approach and refused to address this issue.

Take a look at WP:MFD which notes 'Consider explaining your concerns on the user's talk page with a personal note or by adding to their talk page. This step assumes good faith and civility; often the user is simply unaware of the guidelines'. You are well aware of the guidelines, but for reasons unknown you have decided they do not apply to you.

Please think again about your behaviour and whether you would consider making changes to your user page.

Kind Regards,

Mark Conservativecat (talk) 07:20, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I've already addressed the issue. Timeshift (talk) 07:26, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

No you have not sadly. I was hoping you could specifically address the issues I have raised above. Conservativecat (talk) 07:28, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Conservativecat - I note that the ONLY edits you have made on Wikipedia are on THIS page, complaining about Timeshift's User page. With all due respect, that shows a ridiculous obsession on your part. Get a (Wikipedia) life. Go somewhere else. Find a real article to work on. You are no use at all to Wikipedia just whining here. HiLo48 (talk) 07:25, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Please try to be civil. This is not about me, it is about clear and obvious breaches of Wikipedia policy which are being consistently ignored. Conservativecat (talk) 07:27, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Everything you've brought up has already been brought up in previous deletion attempts.[8][9][10] Stop thrashing a dead horse. Timeshift (talk) 07:30, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Are you saying Wikipedia editors are ignoring Wikipedia policies? Conservativecat (talk) 07:32, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

You even have a box on your page saying 'This user opposes the policies and views of Tony Abbott.' You don't think it might be a conflict of interest for you to then be a prolific editor of pages related to Australian politics? Conservativecat (talk) 07:35, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Go read what WP:COI is. Timeshift (talk) 07:38, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I know. Conservativecat is Andrew Bolt's new ID here! About as rational. HiLo48 (talk) 07:37, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I generally think it's pretty rational to try and resolve disputes by following the spirit and letter of long-established Wikipedia policies. Conservativecat (talk) 07:55, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

For someone who only registered today and who has only posted HERE(!), you seem to know an awful lot about "long-established Wikipedia policies". So whose sock-puppet are you? HiLo48 (talk) 08:00, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

HERE! *basks in glory* Timeshift (talk) 08:11, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

LOL HiLo48 (talk) 08:22, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Firstly, I registered yesterday and as I am retired I have spent several hours reading up on the facts surrounding Wikipedia policies concerning this. Secondly, I am disgusted but unsurprised to have the attention turned away from Timeshift9 to more personal attacks on my integrity. Conservativecat (talk) 08:47, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

If I hadn't read the policies I would be attacked and abused and now that I have I am still being attacked by you, HiLo48. Conservativecat (talk) 08:52, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

I did wonder if Skyring/Pete would be the first of the circus to comment. Timeshift (talk) 09:46, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Pete/Skyring would certainly be the right person to recognise an obsession. HiLo48 (talk) 14:17, 20 September 2013 (UTC)

Timeshift - you may be interested in User talk:Conservativecat#Blocked. HiLo48 (talk) 22:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

lawls Timeshift (talk) 01:13, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

All ballots

On review, 3 polling stations of 9146 are still out. My apologies - Nbpolitico (talk) 05:09, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Polling stations counted and whether or not results are final are two different things. Timeshift (talk) 05:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

Well deserved

click me. Click me now.	A series of gaydar-breaking pictures of Kate Ellis
	It is with great pleasure that I give you this award, in recognition of your fine work on Australian federal election, 2013 and other Australian-election-related articles Surturz (talk) 03:34, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Ew. It's like a punishment rather than an award. I'll give you 24 hours to replace that image with something more... err... something less... stomach-churning :) Timeshift (talk) 05:37, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh and did you run this by Lib HQ first? Wouldn't want a 5-year party ban due to Abbott the tyrannical dictator :D Timeshift (talk) 09:33, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Better? --Surturz (talk) 08:17, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

lol! Did Lib HQ force you in to this in order not to be expelled from the party, or was this on your own volition? Timeshift (talk) 00:00, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Shhhh! They have eyes everywhere! --Surturz (talk) 08:30, 6 October 2013 (UTC)

Tont Abbott has quietly repaid $609 in taxpayer-funded entitlements he claimed to attend the 2006 wedding of one-time colleague Peter Slipper, who is now facing charges for alleged expenses rorts. IIIIIIII-ronyyyyyyy! Timeshift (talk) 06:27, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

So the Left had both eyes shut when it came to Rudd's travel expenses of hundreds of thousands of dollars, but now they are all over a few hundred bucks by Coalition MPs? Give me a break. Slow news day stuff. --Surturz (talk) 02:43, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

But wait - isn't it all about the government and not the opposition? That's what Abbott kept telling us. Or does it only apply to Labor governments? Anywho - Rudd's international travel expenses as Foreign Minister and PM? So should we be counting Abbott's Indonesia trip and all of his other trips? I don't see why. We are referring to non-work travel. Speaking of which, how many cabinet ministers departed due to expenses during Howard's first term? Seven, count em seven. Dead-cat bounce lols. Timeshift (talk) 06:01, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Howard is six years and five prime ministers ago... why are we talking about him? :-) I wonder who would actually go to Sophie Mirabella's wedding WITHOUT getting paid for it. I dunno if you've ever been to one of these "social occasions" with MPs, but I reckon they are actually working (though I agree most voters would not see it that way). Claiming travel expenses to community events is totally different to the things Peter Slipper and Craig Thomson (politician) are accused of. The expenses "rorts" currently being reported have been on the public record for years - the papers are only trotting them out because it's been a few slow news days. --Surturz (talk) 07:04, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Re Turnbull's comment that "The rules are a little bit ambiguous at times and it's not uncommon for people to pay expenses claims back", I loved this feedback from megpie71 (11:47 AM on 08/10/2013):

"If you have problems figuring out what does and doesn't fit under the heading of acceptable, there are lots of nice people at Centrelink who would be more than willing to help you out."

(Hang on, I used to be one of them - I spent a couple of years working for the Dept of Social Security - including six months in U&SB. Although that was almost 40 years ago and my skills may be a little rusty, but I'd be happy to help out!) Cheers, Bahudhara (talk) 07:16, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

More slow news. What happens in opposition, stays in opposition :D Surtz, so I encapsulate all of that as you agreeing with Abbott that all that matters is the current government and not previous ones, or current oppositions. It will be a fascinating 3 years :) Timeshift (talk) 08:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

Weddings? Iron man comp? Pollie pedal? They're right up there with Berlusconi's bunga-bunga parties, aren't they? </sarcasm>

I don't know what you're going on about "all that matters is the current government", but the ALP kinda drew a thick black line under themselves. --Surturz (talk) 07:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

You're having to stoop so low as to compare the Australian PM to Berlusconi and his bunga-bunga parties and to Italian democracy more generally? Wow. There's a thick black line coming right up behind Labor. But as Abbott always said, it's about the government, not the opposition. A fascinating 3 years in store! Timeshift (talk) 09:35, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

I've said it before and i'll say it again. Just imagine what could have been possible without Abbott. Timeshift (talk) 02:16, 10 October 2013 (UTC)

Leadersheep

Albo vs Bilbo, and they picked the Dumbo! http //youtu.be/GFELLK8htKM lol! --Surturz (talk) 01:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Abbott. Enough said! :D Timeshift (talk) 06:06, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Longest slowest newsday in history

lol Timeshift (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)

At least that one has an allegation of some deception (unlike the weddings). But oh look: Ski trip in Canberra! --Surturz (talk) 00:03, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

It's about the government, not the opposition, remember! And why keep bringing up Dreyfus? Timeshift (talk) 01:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

First time I've brought up Dreyfus. What about Williamson?[11]. Lib travel rorts are very small beer to the what is going on in the ALP. --Surturz (talk) 02:18, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasn't referring to you directly. Just that Dreyfus remains the figleaf. And how many times do I have to say it's not about the opposition, it's all about the government! Put expenses in to Google News - all Liberal. A tricky transition for you it seems :) Timeshift (talk) 02:37, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

So no reply? Nothing to talk about but the opposition? It's gonna be a tough 3 years for you :) Timeshift (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Nah not really. You seem more perky though. Go on - admit it - you're happier railing against a Coalition PM than having your heart broken by Rudd and his lot in government. --Surturz (talk) 06:06, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

I'm perky because the Abbott government experiment is going just as expected. He sowed his seeds of defeat before he even got in to government. Will he still want to take politics off the front page when the media are beating his door down for answers? The last 6 years of Labor gave a lot more to Australia both in quality and quantity than the 11 years prior, and we're in a better position for it. Just look at the US government shutdown, is/was over a healthcare social policy that Labor did FOURTY years ago. Labor is the party that brings the big ticket items that future generations often take for granted. But YET again... let's stop going on about the opposition! You can't seem to grasp this concept from Dear Leader can you? As Abbott has always said, it's all about the government! Or is it perhaps what happens in opposition stay in opposition? Are you happy with your party getting to government not by anything to do with merit (or lack thereof)? When was the last time a new government was already doing worse in the polls than the fresh election result? Where is the honeymoon?? :) Timeshift (talk) 07:07, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Attorney-General George Brandis have been referred to federal police by a Labor MP over their use of travel entitlements.[12] What were the Libs doing 2007-08? Oh thats right, holding up cans of preserved food lol! Timeshift (talk) 08:12, 17 October 2013 (UTC)

Miranda state by-election, 2013... lord, can't you Libs get to several terms let alone one term before suffering double baseball bat swings? :) Timeshift (talk) 08:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Oh look

It was a slow news day. RE: Miranda, yep that was a bad result. Perfect storm of events there, council shenanigans, feds winning, local member leaving early, usual anti-govt by-election swing etc. --Surturz (talk) 02:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

And therefore the result we all, obviously, expected?! Ha! Timeshift (talk) 06:10, 24 October 2013 (UTC)

Are you really starting already? Can't even give it some time? "A long-time Coalition staffer warns morale around Government ranks is "abysmal" and "resentment is festering". He predicts a bonanza for reporters because "the joint will leak like a sieve". A spokesperson for Mr Abbott denies there is widespread angst in Government ranks. He told AM "there's got to be a balance. It's about rewarding people who've performed well". "Government's not just a holiday - or just a reward for opposition. It's a huge responsibility," the spokesman said."[13] Timeshift (talk) 02:40, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

Greg Hunt citing wikipedia for anti-climate change arguments, lol!! Timeshift (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2013 (UTC)

If that's an insult, why are you here? :-) (I am, however, moderately surprised that he could find anti-climate change arguments on WP). --Surturz (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

A minister of the crown should not be relying on wikipedia. Luckily I am not a minister of the crown. But if I was a minister using wikipedia (ugh) at least I wouldn't be such a noob as to cite wikipedia rather than the ref used. And if it isn't ref'd, don't use it. WP is a great project but I expect something a bit more authoritative and a bit less amateurish from our government :) Timeshift (talk) 03:46, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

WA Senate count WP:OR

Section 11 of the Australian Constitution allows the Senate to sit "notwithstanding the failure of any State to provide for its representation in the Senate". I think it more likely that PUP will increase their vote if there is a fresh election, but say they don't get a Senator up, and then challenge absolutely everything to do with the new election (like they did with Fairfax)? Could be that WA won't elect Senators in time for the new term. The WA Premier could also instruct the WA Governor to issue writs for a new election the WA Senators (only) per section 12. Could be interesting constitutional times ahead (though I hope not). --Surturz (talk) 02:35, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Is this the instigator for advertisements for upper house candidates? How else will they make sure you have to live under a rock to not know about having to vote in a by-election of sorts? Hmm, I wonder how they did it during the days of half-senate only elections? Timeshift (talk) 03:47, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah it will be interesting what the ads will look like. All bets are off in a fresh election IMO. The electorate could swing back to the majors, or decide they like Clive and swing to PUP. I doubt they'll swing to the govt but anything is possible. --Surturz (talk) 06:37, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Agree. 3 LIB 2 ALP 1 GRN would be good, and fairest. I think you'll find after all this exposure that the micro-party vote, and the effect of their prefs of which PUP was also a benefactor on a 5% primary, will go down :) Timeshift (talk) 06:55, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Sports Party elected on 0.2%. Ugh. At least the Greens got some justice with a seat on 10% of the WA vote (twice what PUP got). Let's go back to the polls and get what the public voted for, and what will serve progressive interests better. 3 LIB, 2 ALP, 1 GRN. Timeshift (talk) 07:14, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

No reply Surtz, whats up? Realised things are unlikely to go your way? :P Timeshift (talk) 03:12, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

WA new poll for Senate

It will be treated by the electorate like a by-election, which typically go against the government. I think I heard or read somewhere that it is likely that nominations will be re-opened. So, even more micro-parties. I don't think it's possible to predict with any certainty at all what the outcome will be, but my guess would be that PUP will be the main beneficiaries, since Palmer has been slagging off the AEC for months and now he appears to be proven right. ALP might cop some stick over the fact that they controversially re-appointed Killestyn[14] and Killestyn has monumentally failed in his duty. --Surturz (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course nominations will be re-opened. I don't think the electorate will care about the electoral commissioner, not the least of which there's barely any substance to the 'controversy' claim. You're sounding a bit Palmerish there, let's try to avoid slagging the AEC hey? I think Palmer has reduced his vote rather than increased it. Not to mention every commentator says the electorate will swing back to the majors. What else could one expect when a party gets to a 14.3 percent Senate quota from a 0.2% primary that came 21st of 28 groups? Surely we can both agree that based on the election result or any near incarnation of it (LIB 39%, ALP 27%, GRN 10%), the only fair result is 3 LIB, 2 ALP, 1 GRN. But that would be most unhelpful for the govt, wouldn't it? :) The Coalition want the fresh election to occur ASAP for obvious reasons, but there's no way it'll happen until well in to next year :) Timeshift (talk) 00:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't know how you get 3 LIB, 2 ALP, 1 GRN. That gives the last two seats to ALP & GRN when both the original and recount results only give one seat to ALP/GRN. PUP + LDP get about 8.4% and GRN only got 9.49% not 10%. But in my opinion the only realistic outcome is a new election since both the original count and the recount are tainted. The AEC commissioner has demonstrated profound incompetence. First he said that there was no need for a recount[15]; then there was a need for a recount[16]; then the recount is botched[17]; then he announces a different result based on the botched recount[18]; then he says the new results is subject to a "nagging and almost irreconcilable doubt"[19]! This snafu will likely cost the taxpayer over $10m. Did you know that candidates will receive electoral funding for both the botched poll and the new poll? Total, utter, debacle. --Surturz (talk) 04:03, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

The commissioner is only following procedures. Preference flows can only flow so far before it becomes distorted. Just because a voter doesn't vote for a major, doesn't mean they all support a particular minor. Sure it's legal but not moral. If you support a party getting elected on 0.2% then good for you. I'm referring to morality... the only fair result is 3 LIB 2 ALP 1 GRN who got 39%, 27%, and 10%. But that wouldn't suit you, would it? I suppose not, not for a party whose supporters vote 99.9% above the line. Timeshift (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Actually, I forgot that NAT got 5%. NAT+PUP+LDP all hate the Greens and in total got 13%, which is much more than the Green's 9% (NOT 10% as you claim. 9.49 does not round up to 10!).

You only account for 39% + 27% + 9% = 75% of the vote. Including the right-wingers it goes up to 88%. I don't think that's enough to call the last two seats accurately. FWIW I support a new ballot, which almost certainly will yield a worse result for the Coalition than even your call. I predict the outcome of a new ballot will be 2 LIB, 1 PUP, 2 ALP, 1 GRN or Microparty. At some point democracy is more important than partisan politics, and I think that this is one of those times. --Surturz (talk) 05:20, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

"NAT+PUP+LDP all hate the Greens and in total got 13%" HAHAHA oh these arythmatic gymnastics you perform are quite entertaining! Is your name Glenn Druery the preference whisperer? I wonder what other jigsaw puzzles we could do with Senate results in other states! Preferences shouldn't 100% make up for the fact a single grouping got more votes. How you could justify denying representation to the 9.49% who voted Green (one in 10 voters) but endorse PUP on 5% or Sports on 0.2% is beyond me, but I suppose that's the partisanship within you. The revote should proceed and if it's anything like the previous result, 3 LIB 2 ALP 1 GRN is best. Timeshift (talk) 06:25, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Well, a point in your favour is that historically that has been the outcome in elections since 1990 [20]. Perhaps I just understand proportional preferential voting, and basic addition, better than you :-) Droop quota for six seats is 14.3%, the GRN primary vote of 9.49% is well shy of that. --Surturz (talk) 07:04, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I've already said i'm arguing the morality not the legality of it. Obviously you support an outcome where someone can get elected on 0.2% coming 21st of 28 groups because they've learnt how to engineer and manipulate the system. Timeshift (talk) 08:35, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure what reaction you are trying to troll out of me but I think the current system needs change. ALP + PUP at least had some credibility as a result. Sports getting in on less than 1% primary is a joke. I agree the system needs to change, I prefer the NSW legislative council method. --Surturz (talk) 10:39, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

I don't think it's fair that gaming the system with Druery helped PUP to potentially gain a seat with 5% but leave a party on 9.49% without a seat. Obviously you disagree. Timeshift (talk) 22:23, 4 November 2013 (UTC)

Electoral droop

Did Druery help PUP? I hadn't heard that. I certainly want to see group ticket voting abolished. That said, I am not sure that GRN necessarily should get the last seat over PUP. The Droop quota is 14.3%. ALP+GRN together got 36.07%, so they are short by 6.83% of the vote to get a third seat (for GRN). Go look at [21] and tell me where that extra 6.83% comes from. --Surturz (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2013 (UTC)

Druery helped non-left micro-parties including PUP and he was behind Muir joining PUP.[22][23][24] Not to mention, Druery is now being directly courted by PUP.[25] I know how droop quota works, it gave Sports a seat on 0.2% and Motoring on 0.5%. What i'm saying is that it's not working for representative and proportional democracy in practice. I look at the WA Senate result of LIB 39.2%, ALP 26.6%, GRN 9.5%, and two dozen parties on 5% or less, and to a non-familiar observer they could only see one fair result - 3 LIB, 2 ALP, 1 GRN. I look at the SA Senate result of LIB 27.5%, Xenophon 24.9%, ALP 22.7%, GRN 7.1%, FFP 3.8% where Xenophon and ALP get the same number of seats as GRN and FFP and feel sick to the stomach. As part of Senate reform I think we need to increase the number of MPs (which would also expand the HoR) but that would go down like a lead balloon with the public. Six Senators per state per election has become outdated with the rise of non-major parties. ATL voting needs change with OPV, and I also support a threshold. If you want to defend a broken system by explaining droop quotas, that's up to you. Timeshift (talk) 01:25, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not defending the current Senate electoral system, I agree it should change. But what you are saying is that the Greens deserve a seat because they got 1-in-10 votes. All I am saying is that with six senate seats up for grabs, 1-in-10 is not enough, they need to get 1-in-7.

IMO the Senate is slowly becoming broken, look at Bob Carr's seat which will be given to a former HoR member that was kicked out of her electorate. I can understand the intention behind the rules for filling in casual vacancies, but parties are using those rules to turn Senate positions into commodities gifted through party patronage.[26] I don't have any particular opinion about the number of Senators, my understanding is that it needs to be half of the number of HoR members. --Surturz (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Mathematically you are correct. But what i'm saying is that being so close to a full quota just on primary votes, like more than 10% in Victoria in 2007, it's very disappointing and disproportionate when we've seen repeated successes around minor right parties who can't anywhere near coalesce behind the same grouping and get a very low primary vote - Fielding, Madigan, Day, Muir, Dropkick as examples. I know, let's level the playing field and create a swag of micro leftist party entities to boost the Green vote! Patronage? Joyce? Sinodinos? Come now, both sides do it and it's not a new thing. And yes I already said HoR would need to increase... "which would also expand the HoR". Timeshift (talk) 02:51, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

At least Senate reform would make the 99.9% of Liberal voters who vote ATL be forced to actually think for themselves for once :) Timeshift (talk) 02:43, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

It used to be that the Left tried to raise up the poor and uneducated. Now you hate them. Very sad.

I think there were 110 candidates in NSW. Anyone voting below the line had to be donkey-voting to some extent. I've forgotten the exact Antony Green quote, but elections should be about picking from a list of people you know. --Surturz (talk) 06:31, 7 November 2013 (UTC)

Who mentioned poor and uneducated? Are you saying Liberal ATL voters who don't think for themselves are somehow poor and uneducated? Timeshift (talk) 03:17, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

That was your implication. I don't think ATL or BTL voting says anything about the intellectual calibre of the voter. I think the high BTL vote for the Greens just shows that there is a large protest vote component to Greens support (otherwise the voter would trust the Greens to apportion their preferences). IMO the main motivation of BTL voting is to ensure someone is placed last. --Surturz (talk) 05:41, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Not at all - Labor has far more BTL votes than the Libs, who are practically non-existant when it comes to BTL. Liberal voters being forced to think for themselves by having to vote in the Senate with more than just a '1' has nothing to do with the "poor and uneducated". Timeshift (talk) 05:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

The gypper becomes the gypped lol Timeshift (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2013 (UTC) So when do you think we can expect the 2PP? My bet is today, but failing that, Friday. Timeshift (talk) 01:52, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

No idea, haven't been watching the AEC VTR lately. --Surturz (talk) 02:15, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

Well lo and behold, finally with their backs against the wall, the Libs have put a figure to their claims of electricity bill reduction - 9%. Non-core? And so it begins :) Timeshift (talk) 06:36, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

So here we are, parliament opens, still don't know the two-party vote, and the opposition already has a laundry list of questions thanks to an incompetent and non-transparent government. It will be very different to holding up cans of food for the first year of opposition! :D Timeshift (talk) 23:55, 11 November 2013 (UTC)

Surtz giving up yet?

So Brendan Nelson started with Newspoll Better PM ratings of 14%, 11%, 9%, 7%, 10%, 9%, 10%, 9%. Bill Shorten has started with 28% and 30%. A stark contrast and a credit to the statement that the Libs can resist kicking and screaming all they want, one way or another they too will need to give their rank-and-file members a vote in the parliamentary party leadership. Let's not even go to 2PP. Or should we? Newspoll Labor 2PP after 2007, 58%, 57%, 63%(!), 59%, 59%, 61%, 57%, 57%, 57%, 59%. A stark contrast to the current dead-cat bounce of 56% and 53%. The opposition already has a laundry list of questions thanks to an incompetent and non-transparent government. It will be very different to holding up cans of food for the first year of opposition! :D Timeshift (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Name your wager. I predict: 1. Shorten won't last as leader until the election 2. Coalition will increase their majority at the next election 3. Immigration detention population drastically reduced and Manus mothballed by the election. --Surturz (talk) 06:37, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Way to dodge with a non-answer! Let's get back to the issue, the start of the new govt. And here we are, the first day of actual questions, the day after the speaker was sworn in and insisted that all members be referred to by their official title (opposition leader, member for x, madam speaker etc). And what do we get? 'Electricity bill', the speaker rules there's no issue with it (!), Labor questions the speaker's instructions about how to be referred to, and Pyne moves twice that the member no longer be heard(!!), and the speaker doesn't care(!!!). So much for lifting standards. Lip service. The division counts were telling, only 87 in favour with 58 against... on the assumption every Labor MP voted, that's at least 3 crossbenchers too :D Timeshift (talk) 22:42, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Spare me the faux outrage. Calling Bishop "Dolores Umbrage" is okay, but calling Shorten "Electricity Bill" is not? --Surturz (talk) 01:20, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

I keep telling you this but you keep forgetting or ignoring. It's all about the government, not the opposition, remember? Oh that's right, same basket as the new govt supporting more oppn/crossbench talking time, good in oppn, not govt. Bishop and the govt should be holding all to account - not just the govt, not just the oppn, both. But on both she's not following through. Water-tight :) Timeshift (talk) 01:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

And it appears Surtz has given up :) Timeshift (talk) 23:25, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

No, I am just a bit perplexed by you claiming I'm off-topic all the time because I dare mention the Opposition. I thought Bishop's address to the House on being elected Speaker was quite good. In terms of argument you'd be better talking about whether Bishop is really going to turn up to parliamentary party meetings while she is speaker, rather than trivial points of order about nicknames. You know (or perhaps you don't) - discussing matters with a bit of substance :-) --Surturz (talk) 00:47, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Constantly using the opposition to justify government actions? Indeed! Bishop's address was good but it's a pity it was only lip-service to what was about to follow with use of nicknames. Abbott appeared to concede as much when he initiated a private chat with Shorten[27] which happened behind the speakers chair, I saw it and wondered at the time myself. Bishop said she'd turn up to party meetings but not tactical meetings. At least she was up-front about that unlike most of the incompetent and non-transparent actions of this new government. Timeshift (talk) 01:09, 15 November 2013 (UTC)

Insiders this morning from talking pictures to you makin us all feel very excited about being here... oh the lulz!! :D Timeshift (talk) 23:56, 16 November 2013 (UTC)

Bill Shorten has made the strongest debut of any opposition leader since Kevin Rudd, propelling Labor into the lead against a government weighed down by its secretive asylum seeker response (50% disapprove) and an unconvincing commitment to action on global warming (12% Direct Action). The first Fairfax-Nielsen poll since the election on September 7 has charted a rapid recovery for the ALP, with the opposition shooting to a 52 to 48 per cent lead over the government, according to the preferences of respondents. This is the quickest poll lead achieved by any federal opposition after losing an election.[28] BAHAHAHAHAAHAHAH!!!!1 Less than 3 months?! 2013 2PP still being counted!! The last govt led the 2PP for 2.5 years! What a comparison to 63-37 2PPs and Mr 7%s! :D So will we see consistency from News Ltd/The Oz with something like "if an election were held today, Labor on a 52% 2PP would be swept to government on a 24-seat 5.5% swing, crushing a one-term Liberal government"? HA! I love how an Indonesian updated Next Australian federal election with the poll ;D Perhaps he was the mysterious Indonesian that Mark Textor didn't refer to? ;D Timeshift (talk) 21:50, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

Which 11 seats are outstanding?

Hi. Not sure I understand this edit summary. Which 11 seats are not yet final? How could Parliament be sitting if seats have not yet been finalised? Cheers. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 10:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

11 of 150 HoR seats (Batman, Denison, Durack, Fairfax, Indi, Kennedy, Mallee, Melbourne, O'Connor, New England and Wills) returned non-classic results and the 2PP is yet to be counted, as per the note at Australian federal election, 2013#House of Representatives. A joke, I know. Timeshift (talk) 22:21, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is this taking about ten times as long as usual? Every day I check the AEC expecting it to be done. I get that the Senate was a priority, but that was sorted weeks ago and there still isn't a full preference distribution for any lower house seat. Frickeg (talk) 22:25, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes, here we are almost 3 months later and still no 2PP. I wonder how much of it was to do with Fairfax, and if they don't start non-classic 2PP/nationwide 2PP until all seats are finalised? I noticed this several days ago, according to the AEC, non-classics should have been done mid to late last week. So any time now hopefully. I'd be checking https://twitter.com/AusElectoralCom for updates rather than vtr.aec.gov.au as they either post at the same time or sometimes even sooner than vtr. Timeshift (talk) 23:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Timeshift. Can you explain what this "classic" terminology is about? -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:16, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Classic simply means an ALP v Coalition result. Non-classic have differing two-party and two-candidate preferred results due to a non-ALP/Coalition candidate coming first or second after prefs are distributed. See here, Non-classic Divisions. Timeshift (talk) 07:24, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Thanks again. Has this term been around long? This is the first time I've ever encountered it. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 07:45, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Unsure how long the term "non-classic" has been around for to describe differing 2pp/2tcp seats, but here's 2010. Whatever the name though, the concept/process has been around for decades. Timeshift (talk) 08:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Check. Tks. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 09:53, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

My memory is that the AEC used to use the term "maverick" for these seats (I think it was 2007), but that seems to have dropped out of use. Frickeg (talk) 10:02, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

Yes they did use the term 'maverick sets' now that you say it! Timeshift (talk) 10:04, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

2pp not for another 2 weeks now?!

From Peter Brent/Mumble The Australian on 16/11/13... "Grapevine sez 2 more weeks til AEC publishes the 11 absent 2pps and preference flows for all 150..". GOTTA BE KIDDING! More than 3 months, a quarter of a year, after the election? In 2010 it took a month. Longest. 2PP. ever. Not just that, why the 2-week change in 2PP ETA? More lost ballot papers we're yet to be told of...? /conspiracy Timeshift (talk) 22:20, 18 November 2013 (UTC)

3.61% swing

Wow, that's right, it is 3.61—it said 3.69 for a whole week, I should have checked against last election I suppose—are these final, final, final results, AEC? --Canley (talk) 01:55, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

That WA swing? It's weird isn't it... when I saw you had edited it, I thought I had made a manual error, copied the 2PP table from another state and forgotten to change the swing figure or something, but there is no other state with that figure. Then I found an Excel file into which I had directly imported the AEC data, and that had the WA swing as "2.34". And just to prove it's not me, AustralianPolitics.com published the AEC state summary table on 28 November when the 2PP figures were released (and well before I posted the results like on Wikipedia so they didn't get it from here), and that has a "2.34" swing (note they also give the national swing as 3.69, however they had "3.61" in the headline until I "corrected" them, and they updated to 3.69, I have made another comment that it is now 3.61). So given the timing of my extract and post, I'm 99% sure the AEC had the 2.34 WA figure on their "final" results site until they "corrected" it along with the national swing in the last day or two. Of course the AEC page says it was last updated on 4 November so who can tell! (PS, nobody tell Clive!) --Canley (talk) 03:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

lol Timeshift (talk) 05:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Indon blowup

Need some AUSPOL new blood around here. V. surprised that Indon spying scandal has not generated any content at Tony Abbott or Abbott Government. Is there a new article I've missed? 2007 would have seen edit warring yet some lasting content added. --Surturz (talk) 02:35, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

To an extent I think it's a blowup too. I think the bigger issue and one that the media isn't explicitly pointing out but just going around the edges is that education shadow pyne said with abbott at a presser that they would give exactly the same amount of money to EACH school, not just overall. When pyne said it, Abbott didn't correct him. Abbott said they were on a unity ticket with Labor. With the Indon blowup, Abbott can be accused of mishandling it. With the schools funding, it's a clear and simple backflip from Mr No backflip. I note you didn't reply to prior comments I made :) Timeshift (talk) 01:38, 28 November 2013 (UTC)

Lib NSW govt seething over this Abbott Lib fed govt broken promise. C'mon Surtz, don't go! But if you can't handle the heat now after just 3 months that does not bode well! :D Timeshift (talk) 00:55, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Why is Abbott continuing to dig a deeper hole for himself by further denying they've broken a promise? And claiming it's the fault of voters for not understanding their non-lie? Timeshift (talk) 03:04, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

51.5/48.5 to Labor - Morgan... And now Abbott claims the school funding is "back on"! If it's now on, is that an admission that it was off? And how is it "back on"? By making agreements with QLD/WA/NT!! NSW/Vic state Libs, come out come out where-ever you are! Timeshift (talk) 03:25, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

Senate results

Yes, I am about to generate the Senate results wikitables for Senate results for the Australian federal election, 2013. Thanks for setting up the 2013 page! I have imported the AEC data and tweaked the output script last night (it is of course a bit more complicated than the HoR results), I will try to run out the tables tonight. --Canley (talk) 02:06, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Sounds good :) Timeshift (talk) 02:14, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

The discrepancy in the percentage in the SA table wasn't due to a script, I didn't use the script to calculate or round any swings or percentages - it's because I used the ABC data which didn't aggregate the unendorsed groups, which in hindsight was a mistake as the data is quite inaccurate or out of date (see my note on the talk page). It does say it's only a modelling of the count, but I don't know why they haven't updated it to the final data. I think I can get all the detail from the preference distribution files so I will check all these tonight. -Canley (talk) 05:45, 1 December 2013 (UTC)

Re: the Coalition in the national Senate table. I listed them as the AEC has—ordered and separated by ballot paper group: as the Liberal/National Coalition where the Liberals and Nationals run on the same group ticket (New South Wales and Victoria), Liberals and Nationals where they run separately or against each other (South Australia and Western Australia), Liberals in states/territories with no Nationals presence (Tasmania, ACT), Liberal National Party in Queensland and Country Liberals in Northern Territory. I presume you mean listing them like this but grouped together, not merging all the parties into a single total (as in the summary table on the election page)? --Canley (talk) 07:23, 3 December 2013 (UTC)

To be honest, I'm kind of in two minds about how to list the Liberal and National parties... in 2010, we all made a big thing about how the WA Nationals were not part of the Coalition (and they are listed separately in the Senate results table) because of the whole Tony Crook thing—which was of course exacerbated by the importance of crossbenchers in that parliament. We also have the additional complication of the South Australian Nationals (also not technically in the Coalition) running candidates in both houses this year. However, the WA Nats are aggregated into the Coalition vote in 2007, but separated along with Queensland Nationals in the 2004 results—it's already quite inconsistent and complex from one election to another, and I guess this doesn't help introducing another variation!

My preference would be to consistently list the groups as on the Senate ballot papers each year (and if that's how the AEC does it, are the aggregated figures and inclusion in the Coalition being manually calculated and determined by the editor?)—however that is also confusing as the Coalition is listed as such when they run in the same group, with along with four other parties. This would need explanatory notes and notations of the states in which that applies I suppose. I don't really feel strongly about it either way, other than wanting to be consistent and correct as I'm sure we all do. Probably needs a broader discussion and consensus... should I raise it at WP:AUSPOL, or even ask Antony Green at his blog? --Canley (talk) 23:15, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Have a very Festivus

	Have a very Festivus
	I hope your family take your Airing of Grievances to heart, and that you prevail during the demonstration of Feats of Strength. --Surturz (talk) 01:15, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Defeatist! I sure hope for your sake that the Libs don't capitulate as easy as you've done :) Timeshift (talk) 05:38, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

This was in response to this :-) Newspoll says I don't need to buy you a Christmas present. :-) --Surturz (talk) 23:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Morgan and Reachtel and Nielsen and Bludgertrack all agree with Newspoll :) Ho ho ho! Government telling the opposition to change their policies. But the opposition's winning in opinion polls, so why change? Sound familiar? :) Jeez, can't even get past maiden speeches and in record time the new govt is already losing. No honeymoon with the associated political capital to spare, gotta lose and regain govt to enjoy one. What a shame for the Libs. Merry Christmas! Timeshift (talk) 07:31, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Template:Infobox election

You (correctly!) reverted my edit to Template:Infobox election because it had broken Next Australian federal election. So I've taken the time to fix that problem. Can you have a look and see if it's OK? Thanks. —GoldRingChip 13:59, 13 December 2013 (UTC)