Post-honeymoon poll
Posted by Christopher Sheil on Monday, March 5, 2007
Remarkably, according to Newspoll, the ALP two-party preferred vote has risen by three points, giving Labor a 57/43 lead. This is a 14-point margin and the highest Newspoll score for the ALP in the entire 11 years of the Howard government (and the highest since 1993). For the historical record, the public surely has a right to know the name of the genius who dreamed up the Burke-smear blitzkrieg. No doubt former cabinet minister Campbell feels it was all jolly well worthwhile.
|
The ALP’s primary has risen 1 point to 47, whereas the LNP’s has fallen by 4 to 37, opening up a 10-point Labor primary lead. Kevin Rudd remains the preferred prime minister, outpointing John Howard 45/38. Rudd’s personal satisfaction rating has slipped by 6 points from its all-time record Newspoll high for any opposition leader (a fortnight ago), leaving him on a mere 62, a 20-point lead over Howard. The less preferred prime minister’s satisfaction rating has slipped a point, while his dissatisfaction rating has risen 3 points, the latter leaving him perilously close to the half-way mark on 49; Rudd’s dissatisfaction has risen by 5 to 18, which still yields the opposition leader his widest differential at 31 points.
Insofar as anything at all can be read into polls, these results suggest a convergence is now beginning to occur between the ALP’s party and leadership scores, which is tending to become more realistic, although there is still a long way to go and no ALP supporter should get carried away. In the meantime, the real significance of polls is that they distribute the pressure in day-to-day politics. This pressure is, of course, now squarely on the government more than ever before – perhaps the most pressure since it was first elected. Will it stop punching itself in the head and start debating policy? I expect so, but only time will tell.
Update: Liberal Senator Gary Humphries has a scientific explanation for the Burke blitzkrieg’s failure to register in the polls: “A lot of people don’t actually pick up and read their newspapers until a couple of days after they have them delivered.”
Update: Bizzarly, John Howard has appointed a former business partner of Julian Grill to be, ironically, his minister for justice. Meanwhile, back on planet earth, and knowing where the ALP must win seats, speaking of … corruption.
Update: Oops. The bizarrly appointed and ironically titled justice minister has already been sprung with links to the “morally and politically compromised”. Will Julian Grill’s former partner make it to swearing in?
This entry was posted on Monday, March 5th, 2007 at 11:35 PM and filed under Politics - national.
Follow comments here with the RSS 2.0 feed.
Post a comment or leave a trackback.
But where can the current Government go, Chris? Is it possible it has been slaving away quietly so to present a visionary, lastingly efficient policy – in which area? Something which isn’t a short term fix?
The public are most certainly calling Howard fairly on the opportunism of his attacks on Rudd, via the ministerial sacking, which took the hot air beyond words and nailed a stake in the ground as to what it’s all about. Similarly, the public will be cynical or at least certainly aware of the payout style of this government as it enters election time. Even if they appreciate the handout, there is now, significantly and differently, a general air that policy needs to be turned to the longer term. This of course is largely due to ‘climate change’ but also due somewhat to incumbency or what is beginning to be discussed as a ‘mood for change’.
That leaves ‘the economy’. Consider the great weight of electoral issues each calling for dialogue and Howard’s one answer is ‘economy’. Without a wider perspective for Howard’s agenda where he can clearly speak on issues in ways other than of the economy, that is, addressing the wholesomeness of the issue itself, Howard threatens his own campaign by reducing the power of ‘the economy’. He renders it more of a mascot, rather than a player.
Seriously, where can the Howard Government go?
It has major recourse to continue through negative receipt of its attack campaign on Rudd (and others in time) so as to reduce Rudd to less than zero so it becomes the preferred option of zero.
It is conceivable the current government will continue with its usual style of going low: so we can expect a heap more of the personal attack, the divisive attack on the ALP, and the dogwhistle and fear campaigns generally throughout the public.
Since the Howard Government can’t go up: it’s lost that ground permanently (ie, it can’t appear now as squeaky clean), it is reasonable to assume it can only go lower, and that by doing so it wipes out its opponent as the worst of two bads.
Posted on 06-Mar-07 at 11:14 am | PermalinkRe: Update. LOL!!!
Posted on 06-Mar-07 at 11:40 am | PermalinkI think that deserves a post of its own.
I think it registered in the polls.
Posted on 06-Mar-07 at 11:47 am | PermalinkPeople forget there was a large vote for the ALP in Newspoll when it is was highly likely the Ruddmeister would be leader in other words they wanted him to be leader.
I do know both parties polling has people not listening when Howard talks about Iraq.
It seems to me when you get a minster, one of the few competent ones, to resign soley to hunt Rudd blows up in your face.
It also over the top to say Bomber’s two close mates Burke & Edwards were about getting numbers for Rudd. Note no MP’s have been shown to be Burkites in WA!
if this was soooooooooooooooo bad then why didn’t the Government go in so hard 3 months when it was revealed.
If it is morally and politically reprehensible to meet with Burke why is it Andrew Forrest, the mole!, or Prosser are not so.
The government went over the top and now have nowhere to go and Howard looks even more suspect because of his actions.
Posted on 06-Mar-07 at 11:59 am | PermalinkDoes this man ever read his own polls?
Incidentally, when was Howard last on top of the media cycle? He’s had some rare-ish daily media wins, but when was he last in control and riding high?
What was he doing to have been riding on top?
And, now, how can he regain that?
Posted on 06-Mar-07 at 12:49 pm | PermalinkApologies to place a focus away from the polls. My point is that on past form and current reality it’s fair to say the Coalition has identified a weakness in Rudd being personally his thin skin and professionally his inexperience and will work that into the ground over the coming months. Similarly, they’ll seek to do the same with other significant Labor MPs and while doing so be looking for a crack in Labor policy to ram those ‘inelectable’ points home and hope all the while Rudd will break. At that time the electorate will rightly say “bummer, that’s that (again) for the ALP” and take the handouts and return to their lives.
Who’s to say that won’t be effective? Similarly, if the electorate has had enough of the incumbents whatever Howard does won’t work, should he aim low.
If any of these ideas have merit, it would point to a breaking of ALP, perhaps more likely a series of breaks, until the polls return in favour of the incumbents. That could conceivably occur at any time, shortly, or right up until the last few days. In that supposed case, the Coalition may be preparing for an even greater loss in the polls as weeks roll on due the unsavoury attacks, in the belief Rudd and Labor will crack.
These are merely ideas to share. It could be that IR, climate change, nuclear power, Iraq, Hicks, and perhaps moreso the matter of Liberal Party leadership move forward sufficiently to deflect (in the media cycle) the white-heat from Rudd enough to have him mutter through. If that’s the case, we’d expect a return to normal polling in the way I believe Chris is expecting.
The seminal differences this time around are that the incumbents have nowhere to go but low, and Rudd isn’t Latham, hence the intensity will increase dramatically. I’d suggest in that circumstance the polls won’t reflect necessarily that intensity, and could be unusally elusive as provident indication.
Posted on 06-Mar-07 at 2:48 pm | Permalink..it
Posted on 06-Mar-07 at 4:02 pm | PermalinkBut where can the current Government go, Chris?
Far be it for me, but the first thing I would advise is for the government to cap the rising levels of dissatisfaction with Howard personally. The biggest differential across the polls is the anti-Howard factor, a 31 point difference, and at 49 per cent the pm’s dissatisfaction rating is now hovering on the verge of the majority. If any of the polling is to be taken as approximating reality, this time, it really does appear that most people are about to be “Not Happy John.” To me, to restore his respect, it seems bleedingly obvious that the prime minister must be seen to be giving the new opposition leader a “fair go”.
In conjunction with lowering the insane, self-destructive and apparently repellant temperature of the personal assault on KR, surely the government must drop this to make the most of its strongest asset, i.e. the economy. It follows that I would be investing as much as possible in the development of economic policies for the future. The government can still win on this front, it still has plenty of time to develop policies, there will be a major national debate on the economy at some stage in the run-up to the election, and this is the clash that the government must win. To give one example, if I was Howard, I would remember the “BBQ stopper” and develop a credible policy for universal paid maternity leave.
Strictly between you and me, any strategy the government employs based on the premiss that they will “crack” Rudd will be futile. This is to say, I hope they do pursue this, for there is little surer than that it will fail and, on this poll’s evidence, backfire. What has been read by some commentators as “shakiness” and “nervousnes” on the part of KR over recent days is mistaken. What they have seen is someone who is vulnerable only to pushing himself too hard, and these were merely the symptoms of him being strung out from sleep deprivation. I’m discovering that KR has a secret advantage in that people keep imagining him as a neophyte. Heh. They’ll learn.
Posted on 06-Mar-07 at 4:06 pm | PermalinkThose Howard dissatisfaction figures are a key; recollections of Bush and what happened to him.
A reversal on the trend of “unfair go” would have to help them, unless offset by the threat of terrorism whence they would be seeking to appear stronger for it.
On policy, the Coalition would obviously be seeking to appear as moving forward and cutting edge, so we could rightly expect some innovation there. But how to trump the unproven tending to dead hands of the bigger policies already on? Thereby the guess is they’ll keep going low. Continuing to paint Rudd as dangerous, etc as above, and that poses the question as to into which context their new policies will be placed. If they continue negative and it doesn’t work (coming across media commentary as “Rudd isn’t as thin-skinned as the Coalition hoped” etc), it will be interesting to see if any negative sentiment existing about the style of Coalition attacks is transferred to quick fix policies introduced.
Anyway, long way to go and the economy is certainly at the centre. I guess like many others I’m not convinced Rudd will win the personality stakes. IR is not a given by any means, security could be a wild card, and Rudd will have to overturn the Coalition on economy. At least at this point it could be argued fairly that the public, finally, won’t be so readily sold up the creek by a Howard ploy.
Posted on 06-Mar-07 at 4:56 pm | Permalinkcs said:
Posted on 06-Mar-07 at 9:18 pm | PermalinkI don’t disagree, David. I was just saying what I’d do, if I was him, and wanted to climb out of a hole; not predicting what he will do. I expect like you that he will seek to bribe the usual suspects.
But what would you do if you were him, just as a tactical question, like a chess question, and you wanted to hit back on the collapsing personal popularity front across the board?
I’d go counter-intuitively for the universal paid maternity leave, and completely confuse half the population at least, spinning it as a “dividend” of the economy, expecting employer’s to swallow it whole as a pay-back for the otherwise about to be extinguished WorkChoices, start an argument between Anne Summers and Bettina Aunt about men’s rights, attribute some credit to Jeanette to soften her image, pose in a photo-op with a rent-a-crowd of grateful young women workers in struggle street, accuse the ALP of being economic rationalists and … etc etc
Posted on 06-Mar-07 at 9:59 pm | Permalinkcs wrote:
The cynic in me says health scare, although it’s likely to backfire and bring up age and succession related questions. I think you are right on Jeanette: she has been basically invisible for 11 years and might need to be teased out into public life a little more to soften things up. I’m not sure what they are so afraid of, perhaps she’s poison – it’s hard to tell. Other than the little bit leaked out about the cancer scare, I can’t remember a single thing she’s been involved in or with. The former Mrs Keating was seemingly everywhere.
Personally, I’d like to see a little more public contrition for the various mistakes that have accumulated over 11 years, I think it would work electorally as well. The conviction politician man of steel stuff doesn’t seem to be working any more, so they have to do something. Play to the “experienced” line in that, sure, we blew a few things but government is hard and you can’t get it right all the time.
Posted on 06-Mar-07 at 10:25 pm | PermalinkThey’ll have to soften up the harshness in the cracks in their ‘family’ based platform, at least.
Musing, I’d suggest they could benefit from reframing their economic platform in terms of the future, not on past achievements. Broaden it, talk about the ten year end goal reach, as though it’s real for the punter. Paint an inspiring picture of Australian life, family and work life, as they see it as a result of their big changes. (The fear factor ‘we had to make these changes so we could be competitive’ isn’t enough: people have to be inspired by them once again.) They can’t ignore this as it will be thrown in their faces by various bodies and authorities and Labor has opened this front already, so they have to pick it up and hurl it forward as a positive, seizing that initiative before it gets away on them. They can always refer to past economic victories along the way, and plug holes with handouts, but the Coalition economy must stand for the future if they’re not to appear as their job has been done. More of the same is arguably not enough.
Interestingly, that’s what Labor has to do as well. The notion ‘we don’t live in an economy’ is taking hold in part, and could already be undermining some measure of the Coalition strength. Boldly reframing what an economy is – in terms of it serving the people – and forcing the issue to be debated in their very different terms is vital. I get the impression Rudd is all over this, and the economic fight might surprise the Coalition.
I don’t think they’ll do the contrition thing, but for the sake of the discussion they could show ‘policy contrition’ by acknowledging they’ve made significant changes and they’re causing some concern and here’s why we are doing it. See, you feel better now, all taken care of, we knew what we were doing and to disrupt that is dangerous. The future is exciting, here’s why it is.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 12:29 am | PermalinkContrition? Que? An election year is not a good time to feign contrition. Its never been a strong point of Howard’s. The govt want to demonstrate how strong they are, not how sorry they are. The very best they can hope is a major security scare. Or perhaps, the simulation of one. Same diff, in a hyperreal world.
Howard’s played his personal attack card way too early and it has backfired, he should have kept it up his sleeve until closer to the election. They’ll have to wait for the ALP to reveal more policy so they can do what they do best and attack.
I don’t think a battle on their record of being such good economic managers is going to cut it anymore, as the penny sinks in. The majority of us have not benefitted from the resources boom, underemployment is higher than ever and Howard’s IR reforms are so patently biased against the employee. Where can they go? Folks, they’re on-way already.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 6:23 am | PermalinkLink said:
I dunno link – I think JWH fakes sincerity better than anyone in modern political history, I think it could work, at least on the wavering and uncommitted centre.
As for playing cards too early, it certainly seems that way. I’d like to think of a different example though to put it in perspective. Way back when I was briefly involved in decision support systems, one of the more interesting behaviour patterns of experts was teased out: it turns out that an experienced problem solver usually tries 2 or 3 off-the-cuff attempts to fix something based on previous experience. If the “quick fix” stuff fails, they then fall back on a methodical process of checking every last detail of what is broken.
I think, basically, that’s what the coalition are doing with Rudd: try a few early, easy hits before settling into a methodical campaign of wearing him down. They’ve still got plenty of time to rehabilitate their own record.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 9:43 am | PermalinkThat’s so depressing a thought David, they’ve been wearing down the ALP for ten years, and indeed are expert at it. I agree with you about Howard’s fake sincerity and I guess it has worked, certainly in radio talkback land he seems to win a lot of votes. BUT. The all new (ahem) singing dancing ALP seem to have got him on the back foot. Incumbency is burdensome, they’re all bloody worn out. I’m not sure if collectively they have the energy for it especially with Howard being such a nong of late. I think many would quite like a few years in opposition. You know re-group, do nothing, day dream for a bit. Howard is the only one with the personal zeal and ambition to win again, but he’s such a smelly rat at present. My only fear is they scrape in, he loses his seat and we end up with Mr All Tip and No Iceberg!
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 2:41 pm | PermalinkMaybe the government can develop reasonable sounding policies before the next election. But why would you believe them? Would they tell us which ones were core and which ones we could just forget? Would they keep quiet about the policies they intend to introduce but know will be unpopular – like they did with IR? Will they be able to explain complicated policies in terms that we can understand and that are not BS? Like the media ownership policies. So their only real option is to attack the man because they have lost all sense of verisimilitude about the things that matter.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 4:29 pm | PermalinkYeah, like I was thinking that too. Do we even care to know what their BS plans are knowing all along how utterly miserable these turn out to be in practise or under closer inspection.
I’m looking up versmilitude. (!) I can’t spell it but I’m sure you are right and they’ve lost it.
Posted on 07-Mar-07 at 10:52 pm | Permalinkverisimilitude is Believability – e.g. actors or plots that can be believed have verisimilitude. The actors on the government benches have none at all and also seem to have lost the plot (or at least a believable plot). It is an appearance thing – the appearance of being true. So not only is what the Howardistas say not true it has also lost the appearance of being true.
Posted on 08-Mar-07 at 9:23 am | PermalinkCheers
Very true. Its a great word. Thanks. I can now spell it, but I’m not quite sure that I can pronounce it effortlessly enough to swing it into a conversation without sounding like a complete birk. I don’t think I’ll even try. It is nontheless, a fine descriptive of what the Howard govt no longer have.
Posted on 08-Mar-07 at 8:27 pm | PermalinkWhere is my Ruddslide poll post!
Posted on 12-Mar-07 at 5:03 am | Permalink