For the sake of getting a new morning-after thread under way, a reiteration of the two sets of voting intention numbers that came through in the murk late last week:
• There was a bonus Newspoll result in The Australian less than a fortnight after the last, showing Labor’s lead out from 53-47 to 54-46 on two-party preferred, from primary votes of Labor 36% (up two), Coalition 35% (down one), Greens 12% (steady) and One Nation 6% (up one). Anthony Albanese was up one on approval to 46% and steady on disapproval at 46%, while Peter Dutton was down two to 35% and up three to 53%. Albanese led 51-31 as preferred prime minister, out from 50-33. The poll was conducted October 4 to 12, overlapping the previous polling period from October 3 to 6, from an expanded sample of 2638.
• What looks to be the second instalment of a weekly polling series from YouGov (which I will incorporate into BludgerTrack when it gets a few more runs on the board) had Labor’s lead steady at 53-47, from primary votes of Labor 33% (steady), Coalition 36% (up one), Greens 14% (up one) and One Nation on 6%. Anthony Albanese’s net approval was steady at minus 3%, while Peter Dutton improved from minus 17% to minus 12%. Preferred prime minister was little changed, Albanese’s lead shifting from 50-33 to 50-34. The poll was conducted Friday to Tuesday from a sample of 1519.
Kirsdarke says:
Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 6:05 pm
========================================================
I think you’re correct. All the other pollsters go by the preference distribution voters actually did at the last election, except Roy Morgan. Steve777 did a calculation a couple of weeks back which I think allocates about 86% of Green primaries & 50% of Others to Labor. I’ll have a scroll back as I think it’s more relevant. I’ll keep an eye out for the Essential Primaries. As mentioned above there should also be a YouGov and Redbridge this week too, which will give a better post referendum trend.
Morgan should always be taken with a huge grain of salt
———
Blah.
#Libspill
A very strange attitude Asha. A far better way would be to make it that NO poor schmuck (to use your term) rich or otherwise has their name plastered all over the media before they have actually been proven guilty of anything. I would have thought the concept of natural justice would demand that.
From what I can see, some very powerful people want Toowoomba Man to come out of this with clean skin for some reason and they’re spending a lot of money to try and make it so.
Does Toowoomba Man have some kompromat?
https://www.pollbludger.net/2023/10/15/newspoll-54-46-to-labor-yougov-53-47-open-thread/comment-page-23/#comment-4176058
… well in a democracy they could always hire influencers, lawyers, lobbyists/ spin doctors, PwC, …, even the Shovel was clear about that!
Blow it out your arse beemer
Bystander 6.23pm
“A very strange attitude Asha. A far better way would be to make it that NO poor schmuck (to use your term) rich or otherwise has their name plastered all over the media before they have actually been proven guilty of anything. I would have thought the concept of natural justice would demand that.”
Why is Asha’s very strange and you’re saying the same thing and can it be assumed that therefore you think what you’re saying is strange as well.
I reckon your both on the same page concerning the “poor schmuck”s chances and the law.
It’s the Australians way, everyone is fair dinkum only some are more fair dinkum than others.
Or should it be that, as the liberal/coalition see it, everyone is fair dinkum except some are more fair dinkum than others.
The NACC will shine some light on fair dinkumness of successive LNP governments.
The immediate post referendum period will show just how fair dinkum the nation is.
Let’s get fair dinkum !
Pissing into the wind is not a guarantee of a whole lot.
Andrew_Earlwood at 1.10 pm, Wat Tyler at 1.12 pm
You wrote: “… if we start from the basis that parliament is sovereign, then it’s doable.”
Strange as it is to have to correct an experienced lawyer about the Constitution, the affirmation above of parliamentary sovereignty as the basis for Australian democracy is deeply mistaken.
Parliament is not sovereign, i.e. simply defined as “the one who exercises power without limitation” (Cornell Law School).
Parliament is subject to the limits of the Constitution, not above it. The main problem in Australia remains that the limit on the Federal Parliament’s power to enact racist laws is non-existent.
So, in terms of the legal position of Indigenous peoples in Australia, these periods are distinct:
1901-1967 Federal parliament did not have the power to discriminate against Indigenous people in legislation. State parliaments had that power and abused it grossly (e.g. 1905 Aborigines Act in WA).
1967-1975 Both Federal parliament and state parliaments had such discriminatory power.
1975-1996 Only Federal parliament retained such power, due to the Racial Discrimination Act (Cth), but it did not use this power to take rights away only from Indigenous people. State parliaments tried to do that (e.g. Qld in Mabo No. 1) but the HC ruled narrowly that the RDA invalidates such attempts.
Since 1996 Only Federal parliament retains such power, subject to HC’s limited definition in the Kartinyeri case, and it has used it several times, without of course consulting the victims of the power.
If the Federal parliament was truly sovereign the only solution to legalised racism in Australia would be to alter the composition of the Parliament through political struggle. That remains important.
Yet there is still another task, made more complicated now by the failure of the Voice referendum. This task is to replace section 51/26 of the Constitution (the “races power”) with a power giving the Commonwealth authority to enact only beneficial, not discriminatory laws, concerning First Nations.
Jimmy Kimmel comments on US culture and politics.
SPOILER: he thinks Taylor Swift rocks and Trump is a doofus…. Hard to argue with that
https://youtu.be/cwr1rMu2gkg?si=kmi_gkYAxO7Tu8L9
‘caf says:
Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 6:13 pm
The High Court will hand down its judgement in Vanderstock & Anor v. Victoria tomorrow at 9:45am (Canberra time). This is the case challenging the Victorian Government’s EV road user charge, but it goes to the heart of what taxation powers the States have under the Constitution (in the same vein as Capital Duplicators vs ACT and Ha & Hammond vs NSW in the 90s that ended the State fuel excises), so it’s a pretty important case for the structure of the federation.’
———————
Thanks.
Would naming the man compromise other allegations of similar behavior?
Otherwise, what’s the issue? Alleged criminals are named every day across multiple jurisdictions.
Lawyers for a high-profile man accused of rape have been reprimanded by a Queensland judge for failing to promptly submit their application for a judicial review to keep their client’s name secret.
The man’s identity will remain protected following a decision in Brisbane’s supreme court on Tuesday to extend an interim non-publication order.
The man has been charged with two counts of raping a woman in October 2021, with the case working its way through early committal proceedings at Toowoomba magistrates court this year. He has not yet been committed to stand trial.
Last Friday, the man lost a legal battle in Toowoomba magistrates court to maintain his anonymity. However, it was ruled that his identity would remain secret pending a request for a review from his defence team.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2023/oct/17/high-profile-man-accused-of-toowoomba-rape-takes-fight-to-maintain-anonymity-to-supreme-court
I would have thought the concept of natural justice would demand that.
———————————–
Dont we want justice to be seen? Open justice principles etc.
Sexual assault cases are perhaps more complicated – it has been the case in some jurisdictions (including in QLD until recently) that for these cases the names of accused are protected and not released. Yet the counter to this is that the crime of sexual assault is hidden with many women not coming forward. It is a significant social problem and thus a crime where open justice is more important (imo). Also, part of the reason women are not coming forward is that the crime is hard to prove. There are repeat offenders. So having the accused name published may help other women find the courage to come forward.
All this greatly relies on us, as a society, of assuming innocence and not holding grudges on accused people until found guilty. For a random example, the infamous rape trial regarding Liberal Party staffers, since the trial ended I havent given a second thought to whasshisname. Good luck to him.
Yes, it is unfair that innocent accused people have to go through what they go through. But it is also unfair that guilty people go free. Both happen. Justice isnt perfect. We wait for Precrime and precogs to make it so.
I deleted my post from 5 minutes ago, it really wasn’t appropriate. I apologize.
Poor Cameron @ #1145 Tuesday, October 17th, 2023 – 5:58 pm
Yep. 100%
SPOILER: he thinks Taylor Swift rocks and Trump is a doofus…. Hard to argue with that
————————————-
My daughters have finally caught on that her music is regurgitated crap. I cant tell you what a relief that is.
Far more talented women making music. Do yourself a favour….
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cE6wxDqdOV0&t=59s
given the trial in canbera when the acused claimeed thealigations being publick made a fair trial not posible and the distraction of drumgold maybi it is smart for this person to not be named as they could have some politicial backers how what is happing with home affairs chief
i wonderwho will get top spot on the lliberal wa senate ticket one of the candadates up for re election might have a interest in this case
Sarah Ferguson 7.30 opens with bullshit question.. about hoe did it help Palestinian people yada yada yada.. simple response .. its not yesterday its the last 14 last 30 years etc…
She is an unadulterated crap non journalists.. truly awful.. simplistic moron.
Where I differ from Asha is that I think that any innocent person should be able to defend themselves from a bad law, using any means at their disposal. If they happen to be well off and can afford it, good luck to them.
@ Dr Doolittle:
“ You wrote: “… if we start from the basis that parliament is sovereign, then it’s doable.”
Strange as it is to have to correct an experienced lawyer about the Constitution, the affirmation above of parliamentary sovereignty as the basis for Australian democracy is deeply mistaken.”
_____
Sigh.
of course, the fault is mine. I was short circuiting a much longer discussion to make a simple point.
Of course, the powers of parliament are subject to the constitution.
However, as a matter of historical evolution the form of British parliamentary democracy that Australia inherited at federation had long established what Dicey called the doctrines of “parliamentary supremacy” and “responsible government”. The mother parliament has the right to hire and fire the sovereign at will: because it is supreme.
What I was really getting at … if we are to abolish the monarchy in this country – which obviously would require amending the constitution (fat chance of that I’d say, but anyhoo … continuing on for the purposes of the discussion) taking Dicey’s theory of Parliamentary Supremacy to a logical extension, in my view we could amend the constitution to declare that Parliament was sovereign. .. and that’s my starting point. I’m not the first lawyer to make this argument – and others far more learned and eminent that I have propounded a ‘no head of state’ model on this basis.
Sprocket, Team Katich
I share your view of the case of High Profile Man, whoever he might turn out to be.
I have studied ethics, not legal ethics, but the case seems troubling to me in principle. As you say, justice should be blind, but courts should be open, unless it is a matter of national security, or some factor relating to the victim, like their being children. None of that applies here.
Also, there are already checks and balances in our system to prevent injustice. There is not only the presumption of innocence, but also the requirement to have a committal hearing, so that a judge must be satisfied there is sufficient evidence for the possibility of conviction before a case goes to trial.
So to me, purely in principle, High Profile Man has no case. Further, his own lawyers are simultaneously seeking the phone records of the alleged victim for six months prior, even though they had never met before the night of the alleged rape. This to me seems to be an abuse of the law.
Further to my post above, whilst the drafters of our constitution clearly took inspiration from the United States Constitution, it is equally clear the deliberately did not depart from the British principles that underpin our democracy, as I have referred to above: parliamentary supremacy (subject to the constitution, obviously) and responsible government.
Bystander 7.43pm
“Where I differ from Asha is that I think that any innocent person should be able to defend themselves from a bad law, using any means at their disposal. If they happen to be well off and can afford it, good luck to them.”
Interesting!
Certainly it would seem that’s the reality and just as certainly many would argue the fair dinkum nature of such an inequality.
Kirsdarke:
Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 5:39 pm
[‘I think if the numbers are still like this in February, Dutton gets a warning tap on the shoulder, much like Abbott did in February 2015 after the “Sir Prince Philip” debacle.’]
Anyone game enough to tap Dutton would get biffed by him. Besides that, of the 57(?) HOR seats the Tories hold, 21 of them are in Queensland. Dutton would have to be in a parlous political state to get the proverbial tap. I strongly predict he’ll take the Coalition to the next election.
Checking the Podcasts on the ABC Listen app, I notice there is one on ‘Fairlight CMI-the sound you’ve never heard of’ .
This might ring a bell for those who attended our Bludger lunch in Sydney’s Chinatown.
Mavis
“I strongly predict he’ll take the Coalition to the next election.“
Thanks, that is a comforting thought if you support Labor. Dutton may be popular with the far right in Qld, but how many more seats can the LNP win there?
Meanwhile Dutton is a joke in NSW, Vic and SA. Surely he can’t win a Federal election?
From the NYT.. all it proves it that the US political system is stuffed & that celebrity hubris knows no limits.. Split Democrat ticket would have guaranteed Trumps victory in 2020
Oprah Floated a 2020 Presidential Ticket With Mitt Romney, Book Says
Ms. Winfrey wanted to form the independent ticket to stop Donald J. Trump, according to a forthcoming book. Mr. Romney listened to the pitch but passed on the idea, the biography says.
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/16/us/politics/oprah-mitt-romney-president-trump.html
Re Nadia88 @6:15.
Here’s how preferences flowed in the 2022 Federal election.
https://results.aec.gov.au/27966/Website/HouseStateTppFlow-27966-NAT.htm
In summary:
– Greens 86% to Labor
– Katter, UAP, One Nation ~ 65% to Coalition
– Lambie ~ 60% Labor
– Shooters etc ~ 60% Coalition.
The Green preferences flow to Labor was historically high. A rate of about 80-83% is more common.
When I calculate 2PP from first preferences, I generally give 83% (5/6) of Green preferences to Labor, one third of One Nation / UAP / KAP / LDP if provided and 50% of everyone else.
If Dutton is still leader for the 2025 election, we may see one of the strongest state-based results so far in Australian politics.
4 of the Coalition’s most vulnerable seats are in Victoria (Deakin 0.2%, Menzies 0.7%, Casey 1.5%, Monash 2.9%) and another one that already flipped to Labor in a by-election (Aston, previously at 2.8%).
Assuming all of Queensland’s seats do not flip at all and Victoria’s votes flip those four seats, that would be pretty significant.
Steve
Thanks. In addition a fair chunk of the “other” at Federal level goes to Teals, some of which now look unshift-able. Knowing that, and looking at the poll, I can’t see how the LNP can form government.
Re Nadia88 @5:15 PM
Roy Morgan Poll just dropped.
Period Mon 9 to Sun 15 Oct. Sample 1502
ALP 35 (up 2)
LNP 34 (steady)
GRN 14 (up 0.5)
Others 17 (down 2.5)
2PP – 54-46 ALP (up 1)
I get ALP 35 + (5/6)*14 + (1/2)*17 = 55.2%, which I would round to 55.
Assuming that the Nutjob vote is 6 out of the 17, that gives Labor 35+11.7+2+5.5 = 54.2%, which I’d round to 54.
Of course Labor hasn’t done that well in an actual election since 1946, while the Greens have never done better than 12%.
Margin of error is 1/sqrt(1502) = 2.6%.
Sceptic
At least Ferguson was open about her interview style tonight.
Wtte “there are certain points you have to agree with me before I will ask you a question”.
Her usual style is more subtle. “I know the answer to the question I asked you and I am going to keep asking it until you give me that answer”
Socrates:
Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 8:09 pm
Mavis
“I strongly predict he’ll take the Coalition to the next election.“
[‘Thanks, that is a comforting thought if you support Labor. Dutton may be popular with the far right in Qld, but how many more seats can the LNP win there?
Meanwhile Dutton is a joke in NSW, Vic and SA. Surely he can’t win a Federal election?’]
He’d need to wrestle some 20 seats. There are few prospects of winning any more up here. And I think most of the Teals & independents are safe. So where will he find them? He’s making hay at the moment over the referendum (eg, today’s MPI) but Menzies, for instance, failed to have the Communist Party banned, albeit narrowly, and went on to govern for 14 years. I think we’ve seen peak Dutton.
@ Kirsdarke, its a bit early to talk about percentages in Viktoria as the redistribution could make the margins in the seats you mentioned totally difference, and one of them might not even exist.
Hopefully the AEC will drop the Vic figures soon as NSW has been out for a few weeks.
It is my belief that by the time the redistribution commission starts looking at the seats int he outer east one could be abolished or at the very least 20,000 to 30,ooo electors could be moved around as those seats are rationally lastly drawn on that side of Melbourne
The thing you guys/girls don’t get, a very average opposition can get elected if the government completely fucks up. If cost of living and the disaster of Bowen’s energy policy garbage falls apart, there could be movement in the next year /18mths. If the government does not stuff up, its hard for oppositions to make an impact.
Kirsdarke @ #1139 Tuesday, October 17th, 2023 – 5:39 pm
I really dont see Dutton being asked to leave before the 2025 election. By all normal standards it isnt a winnable election, it’s looking more likely after Saturday the Teals aint coming back, and the turn Labor seats to the right is at best dubious.
He’s their reactive amour for this election cycle, to be burnt up and take the hits. His view obviously is very different, he’ll be eyeing off 2028 but my goodness that is too far away for him not to face several challenges, and probably lose.
Dutton coming out daily and reminding us all why he so unpopular.
@Mostly Interested and others,
I suppose that’s true. Looking back at the polling for the 2013-16 term, the Abbott government were starting to get 43-57 results against them from many different pollsters, which resulted in the initial warning tap on the shoulder as to ask “Um, Tony, what the hell are you doing?”
With that in mind, unless it gets that bad, the only way Dutton’s going is if he loses seats in the next election.
nadia88 @ #1132 Tuesday, October 17th, 2023 – 5:20 pm
Oh well, there goes the ‘Bill Shorten challenge’. 😆
Dutton really does get a free ride in the media.
Way below the normal horizon is a nationally set up news service that community radio stations buy a subscription too. Very regularly Dutton gets a lengthy sound bite when the labor government does something. National Radio News network regularly turns stories into positive spin for the coalition.
A few days ago Labor moved a motion to condemn Hamas in Parliament. The normal kind of thing, PM being a leader that kind of guff. But on the community radio stations around the country Dutton got the sound bite not the PM, happens an awful lot.
So whos behind them, nominally run out of Charles Sturt University, but whos funding the media school? Whos the director of news?
https://www.cbaa.org.au/national-radio-news
frednk @ #1188 Tuesday, October 17th, 2023 – 8:53 pm
He’s getting the red carpet treatment from the media, that’s for sure. Giving him an open mike whenever he wants one. A weekly Ray Hadley spot to spew his Trumpy talking points to the gullible demographic that hang off every word of Ray’s. A weekly spot on The Today Show with Karl Stefanovic. Probably similar on Sunrise. Free air on Sky. And if he gets any scrutiny at all it’s through a hazy gauze.
And, Snap! Mostly Interested. You’ve noticed it too.
Mostly Interested,
I suggest you put your concerns in writing and send them off to:
For more information contact the CBAA on 02 9310 2999, or at crn@cbaa.org.au.
To pass feedback to NRN directly, email the Newsroom.
The direct link to the Newsroom is on the page you linked to.
@Mostly Interested, Tuesday, October 17, 2023 at 9:06 pm
Presumably the same people who were celebrating at the “No” campaign victory party with Gina Rinehart, the richest person in Australia against the so called “elites” who are of course not them.
What’s happened to Lars Von Trier? Has he slip slided away? 😀
Kirsdarke @ #1180 Tuesday, October 17th, 2023 – 8:20 pm
I’ll be keeping my eye on Deakin. They voted ‘Yes’ in the majority last weekend. Michael Sukkar might be feeling the winds of change breathing down his neck. 🙂
Cat – Lars is having a break for a couple of months. I was scrolling through the referendum comments earlier and saw this one from him.
=====================================
Lars Von Trier says:
Saturday, October 14, 2023 at 10:49 pm
Good night All,
A sad night all round. In the words of Semisonic every ending is a beginning.
I’m taking a break for a while see you all closer to Christmas.
Lars
BK @ #1155 Tuesday, October 17th, 2023 – 6:37 pm
You might very well think that; I couldn’t possibly comment
The unidentified “high profile” Toowoomba man accused of two rapes has become a farce. The mental health of a person facing serious charges is nearly always likely to head south – hardly a reason to shield his identity following changes to Queensland law, which previously held that in cases of allegations of sexual assault, the defendant’s name can only be revealed after having being committed to trial or sentence. Either a committal hearing should proceed ASAP or he should be referred to the Queensland Mental Health Court for assessment. I wonder how the complainant(s) is coping.
Thanks for that, nadia88. I was incredibly busy with the referendum.