Scrymarch . # .

Great article; edits: I disagree violently with half of it but I might save that for a topical comment.

Editorial notes

I forget if we have the edit queue turned on, but I\'m happy as an editor to change any of these you approve of.

The intro is repeated; this is a bit unintuitive in scoop, but because the intro is prepended to the full text you don\'t need to repeat it in the body.  People run into this all the time, it will get you disproportionate howls of outrage on k5, but it is worth fixing.

have affected a change of government

-> have effected a change of government

(or manufacture one depending on your tribal alliance\'s)

-> should be alliance or alliances

but Hawke scrapped in

-> scraped in

The power to dissolve parliament at will lends to much advantage to the government

-> lends too much advantage

Ross Gittens highlights the flaws in the later;

-> in the latter

The concern of mandatory costings is, can we trust Treasury to be impartial?

-> concern with [I think]

And the first step towards that is offsetting the power of incumbency and make the government a little more volatile and a little less stabile.

Just wanted to double check that you intended stabile , not stable .

Also a slight separator between the end of the article and the footnotes would be good.