Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Lowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs) at 09:24, 26 June 2015 (Archiving 1 discussion(s) from User talk:Skyring) (bot). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is an archive of past discussions with User:Skyring. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Australian politics

Pete, I have had to remove your comment in that infobox discussion. HiLo had already commented in that thread, and given the iBan your job is to make sure that this doesn't happen. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think it's fair that they can't comment in the same thread as long as they aren't addressing each other... Timeshift (talk) 02:46, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You may think whatever you like, but there's an interaction ban in place. Drmies (talk) 03:01, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Geez, Drmies, talk about precious. I don't complain when he edits the same articles and discussions after I do. That's the way the WP:IBAN wording reads. No interaction, but both allowed to edit the same things. We've both been active on Australian political articles for years. Is it really going to be a matter of who jumps into a !vote first so as to mark off their territory and exclude the other's opinion from the general debate? --Pete (talk) 05:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Again I agree with Pete. A stopped watch is still right twice a day :D Timeshift (talk) 05:16, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

It was either this or a topic ban, I think this is the better outcome. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 07:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Callanecc, you're giving me the impression that you aren't following what's going on. You've done this a few times now. Perhaps it would help if you read the contributions of others? --Pete (talk) 10:50, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

My comment was referring to closing the AN thread (and subsequent clarification to you) in which I made the IBAN quite a bit more strict, my only other chose was to impose a TBAN. I decided that there wasn't enough of a consensus for the TBAN but based on the comments of other admins at the time that was not their impression so a TBAN might have been the other outcome. My opinion is that this is the better outcome. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Yeees, but how does this relate to the political discussion, precisely? --Pete (talk) 10:57, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

That instead of not being allowed to make any edit (etc) related to Australia and football or interact with HiLo there is just a stricter interpretation of the IBAN. My thinking was that it's better just not to be allowed to interact (etc) than not be able to edit a topic in which you are very active. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 11:00, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't want any interaction. What I find puzzling is that I make a contribution to a discussion without mentioning the other guy or responding in any way and he thinks it's about him. Geez, but I've been editing Australian political articles for nine and a half years now, I'm entitled to an opinion on information in infoboxes. --Pete (talk) 11:18, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

You're entitled to an opinion, I suppose--I do believe that the UN has written such a clause about infoboxes into the human rights charter. You are not allowed, though, to violate the conditions of your iBan. It's really quite simple and why Callanecc and I have to argue this point is not clear to me. What I was kind of hoping for is a simple "geez sorry it won't happen again thanks for not blocking me". For which, by the way, you're welcome. Drmies (talk) 12:39, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Am I the only one to get a sense of deja vu from this? Pete, you have been warned before about trying to get around the edges of your iban. It seems that you seem to keep getting caught out like this then you say something like "I didn't think what I did this time was an infringement". Sorry, heard that story too many times before. If HiLo48 has been active on a talk page you would be best advised to stay away. Is it fair? Perhaps not, but you got yourself into this and although I know it takes two to tango, it seems that you're the one that keeps getting into these situations. Maybe that might tell you something, you're not stupid, I'm sure you can work it out. It seems to me that you're damned lucky not to have been blocked this time, make the most of your opportunity to continue to edit Misplaced Pages and stay away from HiLo48. - Nick Thorne 14:08, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Meh. If I were trying to stir up the other guy and "get around the iban", you might be right. The reality is that it never entered my consideration. I added my opinion to a specific question on presentation of information. So I thought it a bit precious of HiLo to make a fuss. It's not about him. --Pete (talk) 18:55, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• You're right on the last point. Now, let's move on, and let's hope that I don't have to revisit this issue again. Pretty please? Drmies (talk) 22:26, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Hey there

Pete, do you think you and HiLo can get along? And do you think that even if, on occasion, you can't get along, that you can limit that not-getting-along to where it won't disrupt threads, discussions, Misplaced Pages, the known universe? I think HiLo is willing to give that a shot. Also, I'm having a beer with some tequila, which I am sure most Australians can appreciate. Cheers, Drmies (talk) 22:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies! I'm addressing that position even as we speak. As for mixing tequila and beer, I look forward to your upcoming edits. :) --Pete (talk) 23:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Angus Taylor (politician)

Your old friend 1955Dewayne is adding a mountain of crap about wind energy to this BLP, and I was wondering if you might use your skills for good... The Drover's Wife (talk) 00:35, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Of possible interest to you?

FYI, I've done a dummy spit (or two). Pdfpdf (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

A barnstar for you!

	The Teamwork Barnstar
	Thanks for helping me get the facts right on Meilin Miranda's page, from Dragix (talk) 18:14, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Discretionary sanctions notification

The Arbitration Committee has authorised discretionary sanctions to be used for pages regarding living or recently deceased people, and edits relating to the subject (living or recently deceased) of such biographical articles, a topic which you have edited. The Committee's decision is here.

Discretionary sanctions is a system of conduct regulation designed to minimize disruption to controversial topics. This means uninvolved administrators can impose sanctions for edits relating to the topic that do not adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, our standards of behavior, or relevant policies. Administrators may impose sanctions such as editing restrictions, bans, or blocks. This message is to notify you sanctions are authorised for the topic you are editing. Before continuing to edit this topic, please familiarise yourself with the discretionary sanctions system. Don't hesitate to contact me or another editor if you have any questions.

Template:Z33

Please note Tony Abbott (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is now subject to a one revert per twenty-four hours restriction. Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 12:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the headsup. You didn't have to do that, and I appreciate the advice. --Pete (talk) 19:48, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

"I'd like to welcome a new editor to the gentle discussion club that is the Australian political area in Misplaced Pages."

LOL Timeshift (talk) 03:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

It's open mike night at the Misplaced Pages comedy club. Thanks for your applause. I got a million of 'em. --Pete (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Remember to leave the 3RR report advice on the user's talkpage. Timeshift (talk) 03:42, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Done. Twinkle apparently can do all the legwork for reporting, but I couldn't puzzle out how. Fuck, I must be retarded. --Pete (talk) 03:55, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

LOL! Timeshift (talk) 04:06, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

A valid point, though looking at the discussion is a bit more edifying than edit summaries. --Pete (talk) 04:11, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

WP:AGF and WP:HOUND

You appear to be assuming the worst of Alans1977 on Talk:Abortion and admit to following them around. Please refrain from calling people names like "drunk". Based on your talk page archives, I see that interactions with other users has been an issue in the past, so consider this a warning (without a template). EvergreenFir (talk) 03:34, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

I will also note your lack of AFG is in violation of the ARBCOM ruling for Abortion as well as the WP:1RR restriction on the page. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:38, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Statute of Westminster

I am replying to your comments in the closed RfC. The Statute of Westminster had no effect on the role of the Crown in each dominion. "...it is perfectly clear that the question whether the situs of rights and obligations of the Crown is to be found in right or respect of the United Kingdom, or of other governments within those parts of the Commonwealth of which Her Majesty is the ultimate sovereign, has nothing whatever to do with the question whether those governments are wholly independent or not. The situs of such rights and obligations rests with the overseas governments within the realm of the Crown, and not with the Crown in right or respect of the United Kingdom, even though the powers of such governments fall a very long way below the level of independence. Indeed, independence, or the degree of independence, is wholly irrelevant to the issue, because it is clear that rights and obligations of the Crown will arise exclusively in right or respect of any government outside the bounds of the United Kingdom as soon as it can be seen that there is an established government of the Crown in the overseas territory in question. In relation to Canada this had clearly happened by 1867." (Kerr LJ, 1982)

The Statute ceded the power of Westminster to legislate for the named dominions without their permission. In every subsequent case where a former colony achieved independence, Westminster ceded power to legislate even with permission. Later they ceded power to legislate for Canada (1982), Australia (1986) and New Zealand (1986). The other significant aspect of the Act is that it allowed the dominions to determine the succession of their own monarchs. But that power was never extended to the other Commonwealth realms - their constitutions state that whoever is monarch of the UK is their sovereign, which became evident with the Perth Agreement.

TFD (talk) 17:58, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, TFD! I find your interpretation to be at odds with mine. The question of who advised the monarch is the crucial one, and it changed from the British ministers to the dominion prime ministers. The SoW gave force to the decision of the 1927 Imperial Conference. I don't know if you are trying to score points or something, but you need to do better than the above to convince me that the appointment of Sir Isaac Isaacs meant nothing about independence. It certainly meant something to Australians. --Pete (talk) 19:51, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

That the King should appoint the governor-general on the advice of the Dominion prime minister was a reasonable interpretation of the Balfour Declaration 1926 that "it is the right of the Government of each Dominion to advise the Crown in all matters relating to its own affairs." Note that Isaacs was appointed before the enactment of the 1931 statute. And the Act did not apply to Australia until it passed the Statute of Westminster Adoption Act 1942. Unlike countries that became independent after the Second World War, it is difficult to determine a specific date of independence. One could even argue that Australia was independent by 1919 when it entered the League of Nations.

But none of this has any bearing on the separateness of the Crown of the UK and that of Australia, even if in the past some scholars argued it did. The Australian Crown was created in 1901. At that point it was possible for the Queen in Right of Australia to enter into contracts as a person distinct from the Queen in Right of the UK. So one would pay taxes to the Treasurer of Australia, not the UK Treasury. Similarly each municipal corporation in Australia is a separate person.

Anyway, that is current legal opinion, and was affirmed by the House of Lords.

TFD (talk) 22:06, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I am well aware of the timing of events. The SoW gave legal effect to the BD. That it was not adopted as Australian law until later makes no difference. The monarch was no longer advised on Australian - or Canadian or New Zealand - affairs by the British Government. That was the reality, as the appointment of Isaacs demonstrated. At that point the British Empire changed significantly. That's how I see it. And that's why I see it as inappropriate to view the Commonwealth realms as "the UK and others". You may throw red herrings and strawmen around as much as you wish, but I shall remove anything of that nature from this page. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 22:39, 17 July 2014 (UTC)

Was that a vote?

I can't tell. Was this a vote? It's hard to tell from the layout, and you don't really say Reopen or Close. Lightbreather (talk) 01:11, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: - this is a !vote - my two comments after that (but earlier in the thread) were just comments. Thanks! --Pete (talk) 01:57, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Bolt

I posted at the talk page. You failed to answer. If you are not going to discuss the section, then please don't revert.Two kinds of pork (talk) 08:56, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

My apologies, I see that you did say something. Two kinds of pork (talk) 08:57, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

Airbus A340

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war. Being involved in an edit war can result in your being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you don't violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly.

To avoid being blocked, instead of reverting please consider using the article's talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. See BRD for how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection. JacksonRiley (talk) 13:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

HiLo48

Hi Pete. This edit was brought to my attention. It seems to be a breach of your interaction ban. I suggest either:

a) It was a deliberate breach or test of the boundaries or

b) It was inadvertent or forgetful

If (a), we will go for a 48 hour block. If (b) I would ask you to be more careful in future and probably remove or strike the offending post, depending if anyone has responded to your comment.

As I've said before, I wouldn't be against removing this IB as I have a lot of respect for your intellect and good intentions. When we last discussed this option I think you were against it though.

What do you say? --John (talk) 17:08, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Neither a nor b. This is an article I've been working on for years. I have a good knowledge of the subject, especially the "coup" which remains Australia's greatest constitutional crisis. With Whitlam's death I've kept up my input, with specific attention to improving the article. As for HiLo, I just don't care. So long as he leaves me alone, that's fine with me. I didn't edit the talk page to stir him up. If he feels aggrieved, he's reading more into it than was put in. Thanks. --Pete (talk) 17:32, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Sorry then, so it's (c). I see you have been editing this since 2004 and HiLo since 2010 so you have a good point. I apologise for troubling you. --John (talk) 17:43, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

No, that's fine. On looking into the thing, you were asked to have a word and you have done so with your usual admirable grace and efficiency. --Pete (talk) 17:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

That's far too generous, in my opinion, but thank you anyway. --John (talk) 18:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

IBAN begone?

I believe WP:ARCA is the place to go. GoodDay (talk) 21:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)

Election links talk page

Given your previous input you may be interested in this. https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Australian_politics#Election_links The Tepes (talk) 06:21, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

HoS

I've already informed you, that I'm letting others comment at the discussion-in-queston. You & I 'never have' & 'never will' agree on the status of the Governor General of Australia. Please respect that, as I do :) GoodDay (talk) 23:57, 12 November 2014 (UTC)

Soccer and football

Hi again Pete. Edits like this one go against the agreement regarding Australian sports naming. It is fine for you to challenge the consensus, but you should not try to do it by directly changing articles. Instead, bring your arguments to Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia) and try to persuade others that your changes are necessary first. I see you have made Misplaced Pages:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)/Sources, and that may be a good start. But making a list of sources that appear to support your position on the naming matter is only the first step. There would now need to be a proper discussion, ideally involving as many as possible of the editors who participated last time, and that discussion would have to be closed in favour of this change to the consensus, before such edits would be acceptable. Please do not make any further such changes in the absence of such a discussion. --John (talk) 07:09, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

There's been a long discussion there for over a week now, following on from discussions on other pages. It is clear that there is no consensus. --Pete (talk) 07:16, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hey bud. Maybe it's best you hold off from making those changes. Best try to get a consensus for them first. PS: Remember, I had to learn that lesson the hard way, in 2012 & 2013 :) GoodDay (talk) 07:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

I understand you disagree with the consensus at Misplaced Pages talk:Naming conventions (Football in Australia)/Archive 4#Another RfC on naming and that you were unable to take part in that discussion. Neither of these is sufficient reason to change the consensus though. To do so we would need to have another discussion similar to that one, framed by somebody neutral, and closed by somebody neutral. At that point the sort of edits you were making would become ok. Until then they are not. --John (talk) 07:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Head of state

I've requested a third opinon there, at Misplaced Pages:3O. Meanwhile, you should reverse your revert at the disputed article, per WP:BRD, as you were Bold in adding, I Reverted & now we're in Discussion mode. GoodDay (talk) 15:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I've also asked for Mies' input, as he has more knowledge on this topic, then I. GoodDay (talk) 15:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

WHY are you disregarding BRD?? GoodDay (talk) 16:08, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

We went through this three weeks ago, remember? It's right there in the edit summary. You have now reverted twice. I suggest that you keep discussion on the page. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 16:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

WHY do you do this? Why can't you respect Misplaced Pages:BRD? You were Bold, I Reverted & then we Discuss. Honestly, your abuse of the revert button over the years, is getting annoying & apparently I'm not the only one who's frustrated by it. This disruptive stubborn approach by you, is only gonna lead you eventually to another block or worst, someday. I only hope for your sake, others will be lenient at that time. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Yeah, we did that three weeks ago. What's changed? Other editors are now involved and that's always good. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 16:26, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Though I get steamed by your reverting habits, remember that I'm one of the calmer editors. Others may not be as forgiving. We've both suffered in the past, for our stubborn behaviour. I don't want to see you ending up there again, ok. So in future, abide BRD. GoodDay (talk) 16:31, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You didn't answer my question. Nothing's changed in three weeks except that you got a spurt of energy or something. OK. Fine. --Pete (talk) 16:37, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

I was waiting until the end of November, for a third opinion. In the meantime, I had forgotten that you breached BRD. The reason why I didn't reverse your revert then, was because I didn't need to have you running off & reporting me for edit-warring, even though you were in the wrong. You see, I'm on probation & can't afford to get into a major-dispute with anyone. The probation gives you an advantage over me, but so be it. Now (for the last time), in future respect BRD in your dealings. Hopefully, this time you'll heed my advice. GoodDay (talk) 16:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

PS: I know your need to have the last word, so here's hoping you'll reform some. GoodDay (talk) 16:54, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Notice of Edit warring noticeboard discussion

Hello. This message is being sent to inform you that there is currently a discussion involving you at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring regarding a possible violation of Misplaced Pages's policy on edit warring. Thank you. --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 19:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Murder of Kylie Maybury

Hi Would you be interested in expanding the Misplaced Pages article on Kylie Maybury?

Murder of Kylie Maybury

it just involves editing the article and adding/correcting information. I think Americans have gotten to Kylie's article as it talks about Kylie "going to the grocery store" - Isn't that an Americanism not used in Australia? Paul Austin (talk) 00:02, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Australian Head of state dispute pushing

Regretfully, you won't or can't let go, unconditionally :( GoodDay (talk) 18:49, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

3RR

You're very familiar with WP:3RR and WP:BRD and WP:CONSENSUS. You've just made your third revert at Governor-General of Australia. Another will obviously put you in breach of 3RR again. You were lucky enough to get away with breaking that rule before. Are you going to gamble on it again? --Ħ MIESIANIACAL 00:26, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Out of order

This unwelcome, not to say impertinent, communication was dropped on my Talk page

I've been watching the ongoing discussion. So far, Skyring hasn't gotten a consensus for what he wants & doesn't want in that article. FWIW, the discussion need not continue & the article would have to be returned to its status-quo (pre-November 11, 2014). Furthermore, any attempts by Skyring from that point on to impliment his changes, would have to be viewed as disruptive & handled accordingly. My point is, Skyring can't do as he wishes at that article 'without' a consensus & therefore, you & Mies need no longer accommadate or argue with him indefinitely. He can't make any changes, just because others no longer want to discuss. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I have also noted . Qexigator (talk) 19:49, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I've reverted the posts-in-question, at both Qex's & Mies' talkpages. GoodDay (talk) 20:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Thanks, both. I think we're making useful progress. For myself, now that I've got a reasonable understanding on the limited extent of "the executive power" in s61, a lot more things are falling into place for me. It's only taken ten years, there's hope for us all!

For all my critics, if you don't agree with my insistence on sources and sticking with wikipolicy, then take it to a wider forum. There's always ways to get more eyes on a topic and help build consensus. If there's a difference of opinion between two well-held views, then NPOV allows us to include both. That's my view. --Pete (talk) 20:35, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

Global account

Hi Skyring! As a Steward I'm involved in the upcoming unification of all accounts organized by the Wikimedia Foundation (see m:Single User Login finalisation announcement). By looking at your account, I realized that you don't have a global account yet. In order to secure your name, I recommend you to create such account on your own by submitting your password on Special:MergeAccount and unifying your local accounts. If you have any problems with doing that or further questions, please don't hesitate to contact me on my talk page. Cheers, —DerHexer (Talk) 22:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

Head of state

I gotta leave the discussion. My temper is reaching boiling point with Mies & that's not good for me. I hope you, him & Qex can work this out :) GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 27 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, I hope so too. Seems silly to have a long caption when all the others pretty much just say who's in the picture! --Pete (talk) 00:01, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

See Kennedy assassination article's talk page

I have responded to your edit. See the assassination article's talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Assassination_of_John_F._Kennedy — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.50.151 (talk) 19:53, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, I've responded there. Cheers. --Pete (talk) 21:04, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Football (word)

You are engaged in a slow revert war with many different editors over the content of Football (word) as can bee seen in the history of the article, to date you have not discussed the changes you are trying to force into the article on the article's talk page (talk:Football (word)). I suggest that you do as there may be some validity in your position but it may also vary from region to region in Australia, but whatever the "truth" your proposed changes need to be discussed on the talk page as jaw jaw is better than war war.

You are an old hand and have been blocked on several occasions for edit warring, so there is no reason that any more warnings need to be issued, but if you have not read the essay WP:BRD please do so. -- PBS (talk) 18:22, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. The edit summaries make the situation quite plain. Using old sources - one of them on The Wayback Machine!!! - is no basis for a description of the contemporary situation, which has changed greatly in the last few years. And has been discussed already at great length on Misplaced Pages. But, of course we can discuss it some more. --Pete (talk) 19:00, 2 April 2015 (UTC)

Disambiguation link notification for April 19

Hi. Thank you for your recent edits. Misplaced Pages appreciates your help. We noticed though that when you edited Misogyny Speech, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page Alan Jones (check to confirm | fix with Dab solver). Such links are almost always unintended, since a disambiguation page is merely a list of "Did you mean..." article titles. Read the FAQ • Join us at the DPL WikiProject.

It's OK to remove this message. Also, to stop receiving these messages, follow these opt-out instructions. Thanks, DPL bot (talk) 09:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)

Abbott

You are, of course, entitled to your opinions, but I think you overestimate Abbott enormously. In my view, Abbott was not a good Opposition Leader at all; he was merely extremely lucky in facing a government that obligingly self-destructed, and was bolstered by an uncritical media. He has never been anything but unpopular, heads a disunited and openly shambolic government, and is clearly and obviously out of touch on several critical issues. I daresay he's determined, but so was Billy McMahon.

Now, I am not going to confidently say I am 100% sure that Abbott will lose the next election. This time in 2009 I would have been far more confident that Rudd would be re-elected than I am now that Abbott will lose, and we all know how that turned out. In general, this bears out my general view that long-term predictions in politics are folly, and especially anything beyond the next term. I am always extremely irritated to see the rash of predictions that ensue right after an election - remember how the Coalition was going to be "out of office for a generation" in 2007 (or, even more idiotically, how the Liberal Party would not survive being out of office federally and in every state)? Or how Labor would take at least three elections to recover from Queensland 2012? Especially with today's more volatile electorate, I just don't see those sorts of predictions as sensible.

Having said that, if I had to guess I would say Howard was probably the last really long-serving PM we'll see. The turnover is that much faster now (not everyone's rival is as self-defeatingly patient as Peter Costello), and Abbott already faces significant discontent on his backbench. Of course if he pulls out a win next year that will fade, but at the moment I still think there's a fair chance he won't make it to the next election as leader. (My inkling is that, if Turnbull ever becomes convinced that he will never lead the Liberal Party, he will quit it; his doing so would, I suspect, severely injure the Liberal Party, but this is just conjecture.) Either way, I think it's fair to say that all the available evidence contradicts the idea that he is "good for another few terms". Frickeg (talk) 23:46, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess we'll find out in a year or so! Frickeg (talk) 08:06, 25 June 2015 (UTC)