Reuters Poll Trend: 56.6-43.4

Reuters Poll Trend is back in business, presumably resuming its old methods of providing a weighted aggregate of results from Newspoll, Morgan and ACNielsen. As such it tells us nothing we didn’t already know, but its trend line is a handy thing to have. The current finding combines three weeks of results and has Labor’s two-party lead at 56.6-43.4, down from 57.3-42.7 previously.

Couple of legal matters to attend to:

• A legal challenge is proceeding against Labor’s 74-vote win in the seat of Chatsworth at the March 21 Queensland election. The LNP cites incidents of double voting and a strong overall result for Labor on absent votes as evidence of fraud. I’ve got a hat waiting to be eaten if the challenge is upheld.

• Gary Clark, husband of the former Lindsay MP Jackie Kelly, has been given the maximum fine of $1100 and ordered to pay more than $2000 in costs for his role in the distribution of fake pamphlets purporting to be from the “Islamic Australia Federation” in the week before the federal election. The ABC reports Magistrate Geoff Bradd aptly observing it was “difficult to think of a worst case of breaching the electoral act”, for which the penalties would seem to need strengthening.

• Note posts below on the latest state Newspoll results for Western Australia and South Australia.

Author: William Bowe

William Bowe is a Perth-based election analyst and occasional teacher of political science. His blog, The Poll Bludger, has existed in one form or another since 2004, and is one of the most heavily trafficked websites on Australian politics.

423 comments on “Reuters Poll Trend: 56.6-43.4”

Comments Page 9 of 9
1 8 9
  1. [Support for Rudd Government down after Budget, but still has large
    Two-party preferred lead of ALP (58%) cf. L-NP (42%)]
    http://www.roymorgan.com/news/polls/2009/4379/

    Also phone Poll 55/454
    [A telephone Morgan Poll conducted on the evenings of May 20/21, 2009, with an Australia-wide cross section of 873 electors showed ALP support even lower at 55% vs. L-NP 45% on a two-party preferred basis. Of all electors surveyed, 5.5% did not name a party]

  2. [Your argument if followed through would lead to a ban on all private education, and that is not going to happen.]
    Just because it isn’t going to happen doesn’t make it a bad argument / idea! 😀

  3. [Of all electors surveyed, 5.5% did not name a party]

    Isn’t this the point where Glen comes in to tell us this 5.5% should be added to the Coalition vote?

  4. [In mid May 2009 just after the Federal Budget ALP primary support fell 0.5% to 49.5% and L-NP support rose 3.5% to 37.5% the latest face-to-face Morgan Poll show. If a Federal Election were held now the Rudd Government would easily retain Government. ]

    The interesting number is a 3.5(!) per cent rise in the LNP primary support.

  5. [To require a religious organisation to violate its beliefs in the performance of its purely religious functions, to conform with the secular state’s beliefs, is not acceptable in a democracy]

    [Well I agree with this at least. In any event I can’t imagine any Government would seriously consider attempting to intervene in religious organisations too much. And certainly not ‘mainstream’ religions.]

    Agree. It would be electoral suicide. And Rudd’s quite religious so it just won’t happen. Gillard might well be an atheist so when she’s PM, the odds would slightly go up. We wouldn’t even be having this conversation in the US because of their constitution. Does ours enshrine freedom of religion?

  6. [Does ours enshrine freedom of religion?]
    [116. The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth. ]
    That’s freedom of religion and also freedom FROM religion if one so choose.

    It also implies that Australia itself can never be a religious state.

  7. Sex discrimination by religious organisations does not conflict with our current anti-discrimination laws, because those laws have specific exemptions for religious purposes.

    As Psephos recognises, there is no serious political prospect of changing this aspect of those laws.

    We can dream, though. I like the comical aspect of the hypothetical application to Tibetan Buddhism–women must be given an equal right to be born as reincarnations of Living Buddhas!

  8. From Penny Wong’s maiden speech in the Senate. Please note, second paragraph.

    [My thoughts this morning were of my late paternal grandmother or Poh Poh as I called her in her language. She was a diminutive woman with an indomitable spirit. A Chinese woman of the Hakka or guest people, she was my grandfather’s second wife. When the war came to Malaysia, she and the rest of the family were in Sandakan, a name that many who fought in Australia’s defence will be familiar with. Most of the family died during the war and she was left alone to care for my father and his siblings in unspeakable circumstances, which she did through extraordinary determination and a will to survive. She was barely literate; she was humble and compassionate but the strongest person I have ever known. Her name was Madam Lai Fung Shim and that her grand-daughter is here today would have been a source of pride but probably some consternation to her. How much the world can change in two generations.

    Perhaps this family history is why I place such an emphasis on the need for compassion. What lies at the heart of any truly civilised society? Surely it must be compassion. Compassion must be that underlying principle, that core value at the heart of our collective consciousness. If not compassion, then what? Economic efficiency? Or the imposition of some subjective moral code, defined by some and imposed on the many?]

    http://www.aph.gov.au/Senate/senators/homepages/first_speech/sfs-00AOU.htm

    Yes, she was being both racist and patronising to her own grandmother.

    Herr Doktor, like i said, you aint got a clue.

  9. [Does ours enshrine freedom of religion?]

    According to Wiki…

    [Right to freedom of religion – Section 116 creates a limited right to freedom of religion, by prohibiting the Commonwealth (but not the states) from “making any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.” This section is based on the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, but is weaker in operation. As the states retain all powers they had as colonies before federation, except for those explicitly given to the Commonwealth, this section does not affect the states’ powers to legislate on religion, and, in accordance with High Court interpretations, no Federal legislation on religion, short of establishing an official religion of Australia, would be limited by it either. ]

  10. [no Federal legislation on religion, short of establishing an official religion of Australia, would be limited by it either. ]

    I’d imagine they couldn’t ban religions either.

  11. [Sex discrimination by religious organisations does not conflict with our current anti-discrimination laws, because those laws have specific exemptions for religious purposes.

    As Psephos recognises, there is no serious political prospect of changing this aspect of those laws.]
    Far enough, I accept it isn’t politically feasible (but I hope it is in 10 or 20 years) but again, would it be fair, reasonable, rational, and / or in the public good to do it?

    As a piece of political philosophy, is it justifiable? Or is “the free exercise of any religion” a complete veto against ANY regulation of religion whatsoever both in legal and moral terms?

    I honestly don’t think SOME regulating of religion is a threat to democracy, especially considering that SOME religious organisations like some extremist versions of Christianity, Islam, and Scientology (for the sake of argument) propose completely over turning our democracy, and creating a totalitarian religious state. (Hence Scientology is extremely harshly regulated in Germany, because they consider it a threat to their constitution!).

  12. [I’d imagine they couldn’t ban religions either.]
    Victoria banned Scientology for a decade or so.

    In South Australia the Scientology e-meter device was banned for a time because Scientology promoted it as a medical device.

    Aspects of religions are regulated, it would be nothing new to take a few more steps.

  13. Finns, you really are a total (SNIP for language) sometimes. To attribute someone’s personal characteristics to their racial origins is by definition racist – what else does the word mean? Try the sentence “Dick Pratt was a Polish Jew – they’re the most dishonest and cheat people a lot”, and see how far you get. It’s at exactly the same level of idiocy.

  14. I was referring to the Federal Parliament. As religion isn’t a head of power given to the Commonwealth the states can essentially legislate in any way they like in relation to religion that doesn’t violate their own Constitutions.

  15. Gary,

    The Nielsen was within MOE with the other polls. So, although it looks out, it’s more a polloptical illusion.

  16. [The only poll to have Labor well down and the Libs well up of Nielsen. What does that tell us?]

    Morgan’s face-to-face had the Libs primary up 3.5 this week.

  17. I can tell you what all of the recognised polls tell us now, Labor would still win easily. A point overlooked by the MSM.

Comments are closed.

Comments Page 9 of 9
1 8 9