Numerous pollsters, some previously unknown, have swung quickly into action to record a very rosy view of Labor’s prospects under Julia Gillard. Nielsen surveyed 993 respondents on Thursday night and found Labor’s primary vote roaring back to 47 per cent, decimating the Greens – down seven points to 8 per cent – and delivering them a thumping 55-45 two-party lead. The Coalition primary vote has nonetheless held up: at 42 per cent, it is only down one point on the famous 53-47 poll of June 6. Julia Gillard leads Tony Abbott as preferred prime minister 55 per cent to 34 per cent, widening the gap achieved by Rudd in his last poll from ten points to 21. Against Kevin Rudd, she scores a not overwhelming lead of 44 per cent to 36 per cent: Rudd himself records slightly improved personal ratings, approval up two to 43 per cent and disapproval down five to 47 per cent. Tony Abbott is for some reason down on both approval (one point to 40 per cent) and disapproval (five points to 46 per cent). UPDATE: Full results courtesy of Possum here. Some have pointed that there are some very curious results in the statewide breakdowns, but this provides no statistical reason to doubt the overall result within the margin-of-error. Self-identified Greens preferences have gone from 68-32 to Labor to 81-19, although this is off a tiny sample of Greens voters.
Galaxy produces a more modest headline figure of 52-48 in a survey of 800 respondents, also conducted yesterday. This was achieved off a 41 per cent primary vote, making it a lot more solid than the 52-48 Rudd achieved his final Newspoll, which was based on 35 per cent plus a hypothetical preference share. No further primary vote figures at this stage, but it’s safe to say that here too Labor has recovered a lot of soft Greens votes. The margin of error on the poll is about 3.5 per cent. Opinion is evenly divided on the leadership coup – 45 per cent support, 48 per cent oppose – but most would prefer a full term to an early election, 36 per cent to 59 per cent. Head-to-head questions on leaders’ personal attributes produce consistently huge leads for Gillard (UPDATE: Possum reports primary votes of 42 per cent for the Coalition and 11 per cent for the Greens).
Channel Nine also had a poll conducted by McCrindle Research, who Possum rates “not cut for politics”. Nonetheless, their figures are in the ballpark of the others: Labor leads 54-46 on two-party, with 42.7 per cent of the primary vote against 38.8 per cent for the Coalition and 12.1 per cent for the Greens. Julia Gillard holds a lead as preferred prime minister of 64.8-35.2, the undecided evidently having been excluded. Sixty-three per cent believed she could “understand the needs of Australian mothers”.
Finally, market research company CoreData have produced a hugely dubious poll of 2500 people conducted “at 11am yesterday”, which has Labor on 29.5 per cent and “Liberal” on 42 per cent. This was primarily because no fewer than 21 per cent of respondents would not vote for Labor “because they did not feel that they had elected Julia Gillard”. Possum is familiar with the company, and says the sample would come “from their online panel, probably not perfectly balanced in the demographics and probably not a great fit for instapolitics”.
We’ve also had today the forlorn spectacle of the final Morgan poll conducted on Rudd’s watch. The face-to-face poll of 887 respondents from last weekend had Labor’s two-party lead widening from 51.5-48.5 to 53-47, with Labor up three points to 41 per cent at the expense of the Greens (down half a point to 12.5 per cent) and others (down 2.5 per cent to 4 per cent).
Morgan has also run one of their small-sample state polls for Victoria, this one culled from various phone polls conducted since the start of the month for a total of 430 respondents. It has the Coalition with a 50.5-49.5 two-party lead, from primary votes of 35 per cent Labor, 38 per cent Liberal, 13.5 per cent Greens, 3 per cent Family First and 7.5 per cent others.
UPDATE: Galaxy offers a full set of results, which puzzlingly offers us separate figures for Thursday and Friday. I’m not clear whether the previously published results were a combination of the two, or if they’re springing a new set of polling on us. In either case, the results for the two days are identical in every respect except that the Greens were a point higher on 12 per cent on Friday, and others a point lower on 5 per cent. Lots of further questions on attitudes to the coup and future government priorities, with 52 per cent believing Labor’s election prospects have now improved against 38 per cent who disagree.
And at State level the Deadwood is a murky bog
I never liked Rudd as a person, and I still don’t. Nevertheless, it was hard not to feel sympathy as he gave his farewell speech.
Here’s the boy who tragically lost his father when he was 11, who spent much of the teenage years as a social misfit, unfairly picked on by other kids, who discovered a way to manage all this by his late teens (ie being the smartest, working the hardest, knowing the most).
Fast forward a few decades, and here’s the man discovering that you can be 52, and the Prime Minister, and yet being a social misfit is still a problem, still matters, can still deprive you of what you deserve.
It was pretty shattering, even just watching.
Yes, I think Labor has borrowed something from their future here. They could well have knocked a few years off their total time in Govt with this move.
Labor’s depth is of course incomparably greater then the Coalition’s at the moment, but this is still a bit much.
Also agree with most of Thomas Paine’s 1371.
But I will not be changing my vote at the next election – and hopefully that is the majority verdict.
PS- TSOP ➡ Yes, I use the full bib & brace HTML tags too! Much more reliable.
libs havent got much hope then
I doubt they can dump Conroy as he’s too powerful (unfortunately). Also I doubt they could credibly dump the filter with him as comms minister because of his ridiculous outbursts in defence of it. So they should make Conroy the new minister for NBN, and make someone else comms minister. The NBN is certainly a big enough thing to have its own minister.
[Having read the transcript, at no stage does Gillard say she wants a “carbon tax”. She uses the words “price on carbon”, which isn’t necessarily the same thing.]
That’s how I read it, too.
Dee – it seems that the little anti-rudd cabal was meeting well before he hit the skids over the ETS which suggests a serious long-term animus.
The whole idea that nobody in cabinet knew about this until it was too late seems pretty bizarre to me. Got to be rubbish.
Further, who on earth would believe anything we’re getting from the press right now. They’re all rushing to ingratiate themselves with the new regime. Plus ca change.
On the other hand, I don’t think anyone is going to care too much, as long as she does a good job. Her popularity starts to dive and she’ll be cast as Lady Macbeth, whatever the true facts.
Indeed, the true facts are never going to matter.
Or to quote the last lines from Chinatown.
Walsh: “Forget it, Jake. It’s Chinatown.”
Mexcan BMW (AKA the Blackboard)
Its only ALP packaging that is linking the mining tax to the superannuation guarantee increase. Consider some alternatives:
1) Increaes taxes on banks.
2) Increase taxes on Telcos (or any other sector for that matter)
3) Show some fiscal discipline and reduce spending instead of running a $40bn defeict while the economy is growing at 3.25% already.
Or alternatively, just increase personal incentives to contribute to super like salary sacrifice and leave the SG at 9%.
Broggers is mis-firing badly as head of IFSA.
Kerse … I agree that, in one sense, labor has brought the time-line forward. But in another, in politics, there is only today. There is no tomorrow. Plan too far ahead and you won’t do what you should to today.
Labor does also have an exceptionally strong bench. Combet next ? Then Bowen ?
Mr Squiggle
Do you know this for a fact? Can you provide evidence? Would they not know that from their HTV cards?
Your statement implies that there were no huge posters of Howard. Like hell there weren’t! All along two very long fences! Who are you trying to con!
BTW Why do you Tories insist on insulting Oz voters’ intelligence? Because they voted for Howard? Or because your candidates are too slack to doorknock? This is the most common complaint about Liberals, not just in this electorate, but others in which I have family & friends (though most Nats are more conscientious).
In almost 40 years, we’ve never once been door-knocked by any L or NP Fed candidate; nor have we received one of those “I called but you weren’t home” cards (ALP local state member & Fed candidates use). I excuse the Nat MP (until 1988), whom I knew well; but I’ve not see either of his two successors. As medical problems kept me virtually house-bound 2003-2009, & usually home 1998-2003 I can vouch for “never door-knocked”. It’s a safe Tory seat. Why bother?
BTW, I’ve never met anyone who genuinely didn’t know for whom they were voting; but I do know older (& some younger) voters belong to generations when one’s vote was one’s own business – we Aussies even invented the secret or Australian ballot.
I also know some old people, some young, some who’ve changes seats & few migrants might not remember the name, but they do know their party of choice. Having handed out HTV cards from early childhood until 2003 I also know some lonely people do pretend not to, just to enjoy a chat; but I have genuinely never met anyone who did not know for which party they were voting.
Pull the other leg, why don’t you!
confessions
[Dee @ 1367: Having read the transcript, at no stage does Gillard say she wants a “carbon tax”.]
Exactly my point.
Consensus, bringing the voters along with her. Oh, and the honesty of informing the voters how much a carbon price will affect everyone and at what cost.
Play up the negatives, squash the positive and walla, you have no consensus, no price on carbon.
The whole stinking thing has ‘Mining’ written all over it.
Gee OzPol Tragic that could cut both ways, I once suggested to somethat that her local MP should do a doorknock her repliy was “that’s a scray idea” she lived in Reservoir (Batman)
On the contary I think the right wing media can take a bit of bark of Gillard by obsessing on the transition issue and how an innocent hard working PM was underminded all the while from within, aiding his failure so he could then be attacked….and so forth.
The murdoch media would quite happily raise up Rudd again as this honest hardworking PM who did so many good things, and had a positive vission…etc etc…and was unfairly and cruly plotted against because he wasn’t a factional beast of the union dominated party…etc etc…you get the drift.
The only way Gillard could counter this before it happened would be to hold Rudd close, treat him with utmost respect and so forth…that way Rudd would unequivocally say it is all BS…. and smile the angelic smile…then have to zip…
[1390
cupidstunt
its not outside the realms of possibility that rudd could return as PM if this all goes tits up]
…..umm, such a thing is completely outside the range of the possible, cupid. Rudd had his turn and now it’s over. He may have a future role as a Minister and a campaigner, but the Rudd-centric galaxy has just disappeared into the black hole that contains all the things everyone would like to quickly forget about.
Dee: Oh, I see your point now, sorry. My irony radar doesn’t work so well in the cold! 😉
Well then new PM, same drivel from the ABC
Is there NO quality control in that organisation? Lazy transformation of someone’s (journalist’s? sub-editor’s? whoever’s) idea rather than stating what she said. Where is the carbon “tax”???
[Gillard to fight for carbon tax
Updated 1 hour 59 minutes ago
Ms Gillard told the Nine Network this morning she had doubts about the emissions trading scheme because there was no lasting and deep community consensus for it.
“I was concerned that if you were going to do something as big to your economy as put a price on carbon, with the economic transfer that implies … you need a lasting and deep community consensus to do it,” she said.
“I don’t believe we had that last and deep community consensus.”
But Ms Gillard says she will work to get a price on carbon.]
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/06/27/2938114.htm
Time for an update
rosa @ 1408,
Very good point about politics taking place in the now!
Combet’s my MP, and I agree that he’s oozing with talent. But I think that three or four more years of slow cooking should be allowed to get him PM-ready, so to speak. I don’t know enough about Bowen…
There will be a time, perhaps in the very near future, when the MSM will go all out to force Labor to knife Gillard. Labor then will need to be agonisingly disciplined, as it’s always tricky to say “…we’ll just do it this once” and then actually stick to that when things get tough again.
Thomas – I agree, except that I think there is such visceral hatred for rudd in the Murdoch press that they’d find it hard to start painting him in good terms. Further, their readers might not be very bright (almost by definition) but even they might get a bit confused about that sort of change of narrative.
Dyno,
Rudd is a reformist and the fact that he has been deposed by the bitchy and easily socially offended does not mean the need for reform is not necessary and will go away. The faction power brokers have finally answered their own existential question of existence of “Why be a member of a power group if you don’t exercise power?”. But, whether that’s good for the country, who knows.
Gillard will probably do the job she’s been given. Guarantee the next election victory, provided it is relatively soon. After that the question is whether the Government continues on its ambitious reform programme or becomes a safe policy free zone.
If the latter occurs, they’ll be up for a hiding. Why would the punters vote for a pale imitation of a Liberal Government when they can buy the real thing.
[#2392
Psephos
Posted Thursday, June 24, 2010 at 9:32 pm | Permalink
I think one of the lessons we’ve learned from this is to be a little less dismissive of the MSM scribblers, even those at The Australian, much as it galls me to say so. They were to a large extent right and many here, including me, were wrong. I’ve had to apologise to two journalists today for casting aspersions on their professionalism over this matter.]
Rosa, casting back through ‘on the night’ posts this is a classic. Of course they were “to a large extent right” Psephos, your boss was writing the script.
[Labor does also have an exceptionally strong bench. Combet next ? Then Bowen ?]
I reckon there is danger in this type of thinking as though the Liberal Party will forever stand still and not find a talent that would gain the acceptance of the public.
Gillard was the insurance against the Libs coming up with a good challenging candidate at sometime. A transition to Gillard would negate the popularity of said candidate.
Sacking Rudd was akin to making your opening batsman retire on 75 to give someone else a go, since batting was seemed so easy and the opening bowlers looking not so tough. Assuming the pitch will always be nice a flat, and the Libs hand no other decent bowlers.
Rudd batted on a seaming pitch against a brace of fast bowlers (Howard and murdoch), endure for a long while, saw them off, made some quick runs, then it got humid and batting became tricky again on a seaming pitch. So the idea was to retire him or run him out since you believed somebody else would do much better. You next batsman comes in, the bowelers stuff up as usual trying to hard to get them out and give away easy runs, but eventually somebody gets it, knows where to bowl…then you wish your batting order was just a bit longer.
[1406
rosa
The whole idea that nobody in cabinet knew about this until it was too late seems pretty bizarre to me. Got to be rubbish.]
Strange but true, rosa. The cabinet was oblivious and uninvolved. Equally strange to say, this is an argument in favour of factional leaders, who at least have an eye on the political atmospherics.
[I am coming more to the opinion that this was a plain case of opportunism, to have Gillard installed before the election and they took the first opportunity they could before it was too late. Indeed that may have been their intention way back in 2006 when they gritted their teeth, installed Rudd as the man that would get them in, with intention of replacing him. What they didn’t bargain for was the extended popularity of Rudd.]
TP, you’ve jumped into tinfoil hat territory.
The conspirators knew that Rudd would beat Howard in 2007 whereas Gillard wouldn’t have been able to? Then they knew that Rudd would gradually lose popularity to the extent that he could possibly lose the subsequent election and Julia would be able to step into the brink in the nick of time to save the show.
I’m sure that there would have been some contingency plans developed by some of the key faction players for the situation if Rudd somehow because a liability as leader but I find it hard to believe that anyone manipulated circumstances to actively bring Rudd down.
I don’t think that rudd has any chance of becoming PM again UNLESS he can use his downfall as the basis for a new narrative (contrite, more inclusive, more open, less controlling). Maybe he should go to a monastery for a while.
Alternatively, we have another GFC. Then he gets on a big white charger, pulls out a sword and rides to the nation’s rescue.
But even if one of the above events occurs, he’s still got Buckley’s.
Certainly, I hope that if Therese sees him reading a biography of De Gaulle, she rips it from his hands.
Good points, Greensborough Growler. I have sent letters to the editors today long the same lines:
‘Kevin Rudd’s demise is the nation’s greatest political tragedy since the Split of 1955. He was a man of high intelligence, exceptional vision and reforming zeal. However, the flaws in his own political judgement and character proved to be the greatest obstacles to the realisation of his vision. He undoubtedly set the agenda for his government, and the reforms that will continue in federalism, the digital economy, health and education will be his legacy.
‘Julia Gillard has different strengths, but it is her task to build on the Rudd inheritance, to consult carefully with those on the ground who know what is really happening in health, education and the like and to tell the story of this government’s real achievements, a story that the relentless spin of the past two years has actually prevented solidifying in the public mind.’
Great post to highlight, hairy nose!
It seems the boss in question doesn’t need to do all the scriptwriting himself though!
Thomas – we’re still basically in agreement. I thought the biggest risk of the transition was that labor was changing a bruised but hardened opening batsman with a proven record for a brilliant but possibly flakey lower order batsman who might get 200 or might get 0. So far it looks like she’s heading for 200 – but time will tell.
On the other hand, I don’t think the libs are going to turn up much talent in the near future because the boat people issue has effectively crippled the party. The party doesn’t think it needs talent (or policies) because it just beats that same big hollow drum day in and day out. Next election, tony won’t have any policies. He’s just going to go bang, bang, bang, bang on boat people. I think that issue has really hollowed out talent in the libs.
briefly – Cabinet tells us they were oblivious and uninvolved. That is a very different thing.
dyno #1401
The only way one can Know anyone “as a person” is to know them well, in the flesh, at that level. Did you? Have you followed his career? Read his books & papers? Or are you merely forming opinions from second-hand sources?
Even if one’s met a person often, it’s difficult to form an honest opinion. I did know Rudd quite well, as a PS mandarin, in an academic context & sometimes socially; but I couldn’t evaluate him “as a person” – and don’t remember ever doing so. Given my academic bents (& decades of conference attendance) I’ve known a fairly long list of prominent Libs & Nats – inc Barnaby – and enjoyed their company (& sometimes friendship) but I don’t vote for them (though some get my preferences). My local federal member is, IMO, a good bloke & a good, reliable local member; but I don’t like his party’s politics. That doesn’t stop me chatting with his in the street; like most effective pollies, he prowls streets & markets (but doesn’t door knock).
But, born in the early 1940s, I have no truck with politics of personality and personal charisma (& that’s putting it mildly). Policies and their enaction are what count.
Chris,
Australians are generally, very well educated. But, we are fiercely anti intellectual.
Sometimes, our collective inner Bogan percolates to the top. This may have happened with Rudd.
[1424
Chris Curtis
‘Kevin Rudd’s demise is the nation’s greatest political tragedy since the Split of 1955. He was a man of high intelligence, exceptional vision and reforming zeal. However, the flaws in his own political judgement and character proved to be the greatest obstacles to the realisation of his vision. He undoubtedly set the agenda for his government, and the reforms that will continue in federalism, the digital economy, health and education will be his legacy.]
Chris, you have to be joking? There has been no demise – simply the termination of a premiership. Political tragedy? How can it be tragic to remove the inept and stubbornly insulated from office? Reform in federalism? Such as? Nothing much comes to mind of a reforming nature…..This is nothing to regret here.
hairy nose – think you’re right – although another possibility is that the MSM were just playing with matches and got the shock of their lives when a bushfire actually started in the next paddock. Did a few journos wake up after the coup and say to themselves “shit, I wasn’t just writing bullshit”.
Rosa @ 1251
Agree with your comment.
Somehow I can’t see Grattan carrying off the “descending the staircase” scene and saying “I’m ready for my close-up, Mr Murdoch” (or would it be Mr Fairfax?) with quite the same stlye as Gloria Swanson though!
I was hoping for Rudd to move on in 2012 having completed the climate change reforms and leaving Julia with a crack at 3 elections. Had you asked me the other week who next, I’d have nominated Tanner. Now we have to deal with the short attention spans of the voters and the lowest common denominator attack the individual obsession of the press (again, it reflects very poorly on just how civilised we really are). So its entirely possible Julia will have to go in 2015, even if she’s done a very good job. Yes, the moment does matter, but planning also helps. I can’t think of anyone else in Labor who matches Tanners intellect and ability to speak plainly and grasp of good policy. Maybe that just means I don’t know enough of these guys. But I was hoping that there would be time for the class of 2007 to throw up some real PM material.
I wouldn’t be saying Rudd could never by PM again. It is unlikely but he has something all of them don’ have – he isn’t one of them, the traditional factional politician. A great part of his success against Howard was he was something out of the box. A
People speak of Combet, Shorten and so forth as future PMs. Combet I respect a great deal. Shorten I have yet to find reason to. But none of them as far as I can see have any appeal than being very competent. In today’s world I think party conflicts are now Presidential style elections. People are chosing the PM they want, not the party.
At this early stage I dont see this electability charisma except in Rudd, Gillard and Tanner.
A combet may win against a plain Abbott type candidate, but what about a really competent candidate with lots of public appeal?
I think it silly to write one of the few people you have that can go up against a quality candidate and win. It is silly waste of resource to obsolete them.
Rudd can quite easily become PM again at a future time if the circumstance are right AND he learned from his mistakes and goes about reforming them.
briefly,
What are you going to do if Gillard doesn’t hollow-out the RSPT to your satisfaction?
Genuine question.
OPT,
I didn’t “evaluate” Rudd as a person, just gave a personal impression, anonymously, on a blog.
Still, I found your post interesting, as many of them are.
[1427
rosa
briefly – Cabinet tells us they were oblivious and uninvolved. That is a very different thing.]
They were not involved and were without knowledge. There was no plot by the cabinet to remove Rudd. Zero. This is not “rubbish” as you assert. It was, strangely enough, completely true. I have it on excellent authority from someone who would not lie to me, and would have no reason to lie to me….
If the Liberals really believe their own nonsense about winning the 2010 Federal Election, then PM Rudd’s term has only been shortened by say 8 weeks!
Or would that be having your cake and eating it too?
Greensborough Growler,
Yes, we are well educated, notwithstanding the complaints that standards have fallen since the past golden age, and there is a tendency to anti-intellectualism in our society, but I don’t think it is that strong really, and I don’t think it is part of the demise of Kevin Rudd. I think the explanation for that lies in the way his government worked – and we can go into deeper explanations as to why it worked the way it did, though I think we are doing a lot of surmising there.
Allan – very funny – agree. I’ll consider overnight which reporter /politician is found face down in the swimming pool.
briefly,
What a myopic view of life.
Apart from the GFC, which was a reaction to circumstances rather than a reform, Rudd took on challenges against all the entrenched power groups in our society.
Health Reform aagainst the Insurance funds stymied by the Senate
Alcopops against the Liquor Lobby finally won after two years.
The NBN against the Telstra Three Amigos who treated the Libs with contempt.
Hospital Reform against the States. Entertaining draw.
CPRS Had a deal until the Libs changed Leader.
Tax Reform versus the Mininig Lobby (and rear guard backsliders like yourself).
Education Reform with My School against the Teachers Unions.
All these are significant and are a fair testament to Rudd’s reformist credentials.
I suspect some personal dislike of Rudd is coloring some of the comments.
Those glad that Gillard will go easier on the resources industry (the compromise that Rudd had alreadhy worked up) will receive an unfortunate surprise in Gillard’s term if she has a good solid lead at the begining.
(conflicts: i have shares in some gold mining companies)
Rudd was PM because the “hard heads” thought he could beat Howard, where Gillard could not. Once that was achieved he was on shaky ground.
Gillard would have achieved as much if not more than Rudd in the past 2.5 years.
I was chatting a couple of days ago with some (Timorese) friends in East Timor, and they told me that all the talk up there was about how peacefully Australia had managed to change its PM, and how envious they felt about it.
briefly,
I could have said “political demise”, but you have to watch every word on a letter to the editor these days. The Australian’s new, improved, more up-to-date format means even fewer words for its letters to the editor.
The tragedy is that behind the flaws of Kevin Rudd was man who deeply wanted to make Australia a better place and who had a vision of how that Australia would look. The policies he took to the election in 2007 were very good ones (with a few exceptions, as always). They really were farsighted. But, as in all tragedies, there is a fatal flaw, and that flaw has removed him from the position of power required to bring about that Australia. Now, I think Julia Gillard will continue on the reformist path, but I do not think she has the same vision as Kevin Rudd. I know I am not explaining this clearly. Perhaps I cannot.
The reform in federalism is happening behind the scenes in the boring rewriting of regulations to remove the inefficiencies that come from every state and territory having things such as its own rules for signalling on a railway line.
GG, I am not disputing Rudd’s achievements. But it is hyperbole to describe recent events as the greatest political tragedy in 55 years. It is more apt to describe the political disconnect of the last few months as just farcical. A genuine tragedy would have been the destruction of the Labor Government and its replacement by an Abbott Liberal Government – a event that was odds on to happen until Thursday last week.
From Poss’s Twitter:
If Rudd seeks the Prime Ministership again then he probably wouldn’t get it.
But anything can come to one through the workings of fate, if the right sort of person (eg- a “safe pair of hands in a crisis”) is there when the time comes. It would probably be a glorified caretaker role, if it happened- but it would still be a high honour.
Pies has somehow gotten even uglier since his last public appearance.