ReachTEL: 53-47 to Labor

A new poll from ReachTEL is their third in a month to show Labor with a two-party lead of 53-47.

GhostWhoVotes tweets that a ReachTEL poll on the Seven Network records Labor with a two-party lead of 53-47, which is unchanged on ReachTEL polls conducted on both July 30 and August 6. Seven also reported that Bill Shorten was favoured over Tony Abbott as preferred prime minister by 55-45 among men, compared with 56.0-44.0 in the previous ReachTEL poll, and 61-39 among women, effectively unchanged on the last poll’s result of 60.8-39.2. That appears to be all the information Seven provided, but hopefully the ReachTEL site will have full results soon.

UPDATE: Full results here. The primary votes are 40.3% for the Coalition (down 0.3%), 37.5% for Labor (down 0.5%), 13.4% for the Greens (up 0.5%) and 1.3% for Palmer United (down 0.1%), with the bracketed comparisons referring to the July 30 poll for Seven rather than the August 6 one for Fairfax.

The poll provides more evidence of an improvement in Bill Shorten’s standing, his good-plus-very good rating up from 19.6% to 23.4%, with poor-plus-very poor down from 45.9% to to 44.0%. Tony Abbott’s numbers are little changed at 26.0% (down 0.8%) and 53.8% (up 0.8%). Bill Shorten’s overall lead as preferred prime minister is 57.9-42.1, up from 55.1-44.9.

A question on preferred Liberal leader has Malcolm Turnbull on 43.5%, Julie Bishop on 22.8%, Tony Abbott on 21.4% and Scott Morrison on 12.4%. The last such question by ReachTEL was in its April 23 poll, but the results are not comparable as Joe Hockey has been dropped from the options list and replaced by Scott Morrison.

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.

2,496 comments on “ReachTEL: 53-47 to Labor”

Comments Page 47 of 50
1 … 46 47 48 … 50

  3. Oh please everybody – ‘bias’ is the noun, ‘biased’ with an ‘ed’ at the end is the adjective! (pedant, sorry if I’m trespassing on your job description.)

  4. [But the test you posit is not the correct test. The test is is the apprehension of the hypothetical, informed, fair-minded person that the commissioner might be biased, even if the commissioner himself honestly believes he or she is not biased.]

    Well, I don’t think your formulation is correct either. From the judicial commission of NSW:

    [The test for determining whether a judge should disqualify himself or herself by reason of apprehended bias is “whether a fair-minded lay observer might reasonably apprehend that the judge might not bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind to the resolution of the question the judge is required to decide”]

    In this case, would the fair-minded lay observer reasonably apprehend that Heydon wouldn’t bring an impartial and unprejudiced mind merely based on an initial agreement to speek at a function of the type in question? I don’t think so, but of course there’s room for disagreement.

    There’s also the point of course that a Royal Commission is a separate beast from judicial proceedings, which is also discussion in Mr Heydon’s reasons.

  5. Written more than 8 months ago.

    [The credibility of the Royal Commission into trade union governance and corruption should suffer a serious blow from its glaring omissions on the allegedly corrupt behaviour of Kathy Jackson and how it has treated her throughout these hearings.]

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/failure-to-deal-with-kathy-jackson-undermines-credibility-of-royal-commission-20141219-12aof9.html#ixzz3kRJjbu7w
    Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook

  6. The test for conflict of interest is the same – not whether you yourself think you have a conflict, but whether an outsider looking in would think you did.

  7. ltep

    I still think he’s hoist by his own petard.

    The very fact that he said it would be inappropriate to agree while the RC was still running means that the event creates the perception of bias.

    If not, why can’t he do it while running the RC?

  8. Rates, that’s certainly a good argument and one not adequately dealt with in the reasoning as far as I could see. I think, however, that even if he had spoken it would not necessarily mean that he could not continue as Royal Commissioner. You’d have to look at the whole context, the subject of the lecture – any comments he’d made during supplementary questions etc.

    Here’s another balanced piece from the Drum for people who haven’t already read it – it’s a bit old now:

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-18/olijnyk-do-the-unions-have-a-good-case-against-dyson-heydon/6705668

  9. Heydon’s refusal to recuse himself will simply confirm for most what is now a truism. He not only appears to be biased, he is actually biased. His argument is constructed in order to perpetuate a transparent deception.

  12. The point in #2305 is that 8 months BEFORE the current furore a non-hypothetical informed observer was stating that the ‘credibility’ of Heydon’s TURC had ‘suffered a serious [self-inflicted] blow”.

  16. “Fair-minded lay observer”. Now there’s a webname for someone who wants a new one – F-MLO. It would carry certain obligations though.

  17. The media have been active players in the political process ever since the invention of the printing press.

    At least we know what TBA’s today’s line will be.

  18. [Hands up all those who think the last week has been a good week for the COALition.]

    Hands up all those who think the last TWO YEARS have been good for the Coalition.

    … Anyone?

  24. I wonder how many witnesses at the TURC will have ‘overlooked’ something …

    High Court Judge or not, john D H possessing no computer skills disqualifies him from any post with the Government in this day and age IMO.

    His age is no excuse, nor is his stubborn refusal to do anything about his deficiency.

  25. shiftaling

    She is just another journo who got caught up in believing KJackson was a hero! You really gotta laugh at how hopeless the journo class are

  26. It is interesting how supportive of the RC Fairfax is in its editorials.

    The support does not feel genuine. Rather it is a bet each way platform for telling Heydon to recuse himself.

  27. Did Heydon really say that he couldn’t be blamed for overlooking references to a liberal party event because the fair-minded observer would reason “that one thing a legal background brings is a capacity to go to the point of an email.”
    In other words, because he’s a lawyer he didn’t have to read all the emails.
    Surely not.

  28. muttley – his inability to use computers makes him totally unfit to know what the average lay observer would be thinking about anything!

  31. [True, but I don’t want this witch-hunt destroyed because of a counter-witch-hunt. We do trust our legal system not to get caught up in this frenzy.]

    I’m not suggesting that Heydon should simply bow to the cacophony of noise being made. My point is specifically about the legal test to be applied to the question of apprehended bias.

    Heydon has constructed a hypothetical person who is not fair-minded, but is totally sympathetic to him and his conduct and process of decision-making and organising his life. But this person is not the one whose view matters. It should be a person wholly disconnected from the commissioner and looking dispassionately at the events from a respectful distance.

    The test is devised to ensure that there is public confidence in the decision-making of the Judge or the commissioner. Therefore, well-founded views of those members of the public who do not have an interest in the commission or the commissioner failing do matter. If those views are founded on errors of fact, then those errors should be corrected and it can be assumed that the fair-minded person would then change his or her opinion on the apprehension of bias. But if those views are based on the characterisation of facts, as appears to be the case here, then it cannot be assumed that the fair-minded person would simply accept Heydon’s characterisation of facts, which objectively appear to be designed to excuse his behaviour.

    In this context, the views of those members of the public who are not trying to close down the commission (and I exclude myself here) do matter. And there are too many of those in the real world to ignore and prefer a self-serving hypothetical construct that Heydon has created.

  32. K17

    Totally agree!

    My late Father made himself computer literate in his eighties and was delighted to receive a laptop for his 90th Birthday!

    john D H has nowhere to hide.

  36. Itep @ 2304

    I don’t think the official definition you quote is different in relevant substance from my off-the-cuff formulation. Also, I agree that the test/onus for a royal commissioner is not as stringent as for a judge because a royal commissioner does not determine rights and freedoms per se, other than for the purposes of the commission. But a test does apply to a royal commissioner because of the impact of their findings on the reputation of people and organisations. Which is what is at the very heart of the claims of apprehended bias with this commissioner and commission.

  38. muttleymcgee@2332

    K17

    Totally agree!

    My late Father made himself computer literate in his eighties and was delighted to receive a laptop for his 90th Birthday!

    john D H has nowhere to hide.

    Your dad must have been quite a guy!

    Mine got himself an Apple IIe when in his sixties and recovering from a quadruple bypass. He kept going until well into his 80s with several new computers along the way.

    DH (appropriate initials) is in a different reality.

  40. [ Channel Nine has signed-up former Labor leader Mark Latham to be part of its new late-night panel show,

    Alongside Latham, Nine has locked-in former Liberal minister Amanda Vanstone, Topics slated for discussion for the pilot,

    which is expected to be hosted by Karl Stefanovic

    ]

    Straight away – 3 BIG reasons to not watch ….

    http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/nine-signs-mark-latham-for-new-panel-show/story-e6frg996-1227507349377

  41. K17,

    It’s the lawyerly equivalent of the “dog ate my homework” excuse.

    It doesn’t work for school kids. I don’t see why it should work for High Court Judges!

  42. [guytaur
    Posted Tuesday, September 1, 2015 at 8:42 am | PERMALINK
    “@danielhurstbne: “There is a bit of a jihad being conducted by Fairfax at the moment” – Dutton doubles down on his criticism, in Sky News interview”    ]

    Strange that Dutton didn’t mention the constant jihad against Labor by the Murdoch press.

    With the ABC now bending over backwards not to offend its political masters we are lucky to have Fairfax to provide at least some political balance. But obviously a dumb shit one eyed liberal like Dutton would never acknowledge that.

  43. “the test/onus for a royal commissioner is not as stringent as for a judge because a royal commissioner does not determine rights and freedoms per se, other than for the purposes of the commission”

    TPOF, Itep, can you find me a case where a judge reviewing an RC (or a C of I) says this? I’m not an expert on the bias cases, so I’m not saying there isn’t one – just seeking info

  44. [picked Human Rights Commissioner, Tim Wilson, said over the weekend: “On Friday, it didn’t matter where you were on the political spectrum. Every Melburnian understood in a free and pluralist society it was their responsibility to defend freedoms and basic decency for all.”

    Abbott has said people who demean the Border Force – presumably by using social media hashtags like #BorderFarce – should be ashamed.

    No. They should be proud that Australians, en masse, called “bullshit”, and drew a line in the street.

    Email Paul Syvret]

  48. “@WhiteHouse: “The science is stark, it is sharpening, and it proves that this once-distant threat is now very much in the present.” —@POTUS #ActOnClimate”

  49. [@HuffPostAU: .@BOConnorMP: A Royal Commission established for political purposes is a dangerous abuse of executive power http://t.co/lFr7ZLZJah%5D

    This is at the very heart of Heydon’s problem.

    A commission set up with terms of reference designed to inflict damage on the Government’s political opponent.

    A Royal Commissioner with a great reputation as a lawyer’s lawyer but also a widely known conservative way of viewing the world that will accord with the objectives of the Government, without seeming to appear influenced by a desire to fulfil those objectives. Like appointing a judge well known for heavy sentences to try a case where the government wants a heavy sentence imposed for political reasons.

    So such a Royal Commissioner working with such a set of terms of reference should be utterly scrupulous in avoiding anything that remotely appears to give rise to support of the people who will most benefit from the outcome of the Commission’s hearings. If I had been the commissioner, I would have been utterly scrupulous in checking every invitation I received from anyone and anywhere to satisfy myself that I am not inadvertently creating an apprehension of bias. Because it really is how it looks, not how it is.

    Heydon did not do so. Indeed, what is telling is how often he failed to make inquiries as to the character of the event that he agreed to provide the speech for, and as to the organisation that was putting it on.

    His defence to apprehended bias was incompetence. And whether he can use a computer or not is irrelevant. If you have a disability (and computer phobia in this age is a disability) you ensure that it does not impede your work. He failed to ensure this. Excuses, excuses, like those he never tolerated from those whose reputations he was charged with destroying.

Comments Page 47 of 50
1 … 46 47 48 … 50

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *