Kevin Rudd may have already won the policy debate on health reform ahead of tomorrow’s leaders’ debate, with new polling revealing more than half of voters back the government’s hospital plan.
The weekly online survey of 1000-plus voters from Essential Research — now featured each Monday in Crikey — shows 58% of those surveyed support the plan for a federal takeover of hospital funding, with only 12% opposing the move. The result mirrors a question from February which found 58 percent of voters like the idea of a federal takeover of hospitals.
Support for the plan is highest among Labor voters (79%), but the plan still has majority support among people who align with the Coalition (46%).
Meanwhile, the government has maintained its 12-point gap in the two-party preferred stakes, with Labor support holding from last week’s survey at 56% compared to the Coalition’s 44%.
And there’s little indication Rudd has fallen out of favour. In a head-to-head contest most voters would still back Rudd (50%) over Tony Abbott (30%) — with Rudd’s result only one point down from a December 21 survey. But Abbott has improved his standing from December, with a 5% increase in the number of people who prefer the opposition leader and a 5% decrease in those who said they were yet to make up their mind.
Rudd would poll better than Julia Gillard in an election, according to the Essential Research panel, despite recent whispering over when and if the ambitious deputy would push for the top job. Gillard would win a contest against Abbott — 47% believe she would make a better prime minister compared to Abbott’s 37% — but it’s a slightly lower number than Rudd’s 50% approval.
Shadow treasurer and failed Liberal party leadership candidate Joe Hockey performs no better than Abbott, with just 27% preferring him as PM against Rudd (53%).
Kommandant Rudd may have the public onside at the moment. But if they happened to see the appalling treatment and disdain he handed out last week to Christina Keneally and therefore the people of NSW, they may care to think twice about letting this bunch of bozos who screwed up insulation, and then mega screwed up the education/construction revolution (boy the scandals that are yet to emerge there!) get their hands on their precious hospitals and the schools.
I am sure all state premiers, even his mates, must have squirmed from buttock to buttock at the site of that disgusting and humiliating display. Unless you are a Rudd insider, it looks like you are in big trouble in the Land of Rudd.
The PM appears to be labouring under the Mandarin inspired delusion that he has already been appointed Kommandant of the camp, but until we the people fold, Australia is still a democracy, however shaky.
Mr Wilson it is with deep regret I have learnt of your sight afflication. Coupled with your irreversible brain damage and subsequent lack of ability to understand polls, political comprehension is sadly beyond you. However in your case the age old “ignorance is bliss’
will be of little comfort to you.
You have forced me to share data with you Dave. Admittedly this data is a couple of months old but it tells a story you, if not me with my sight afflication (sic) may be able to follow. Based on a representative cross section of 3200 NSW adults surveyed in December 2009 (since which time things have gotten stronger for Tony Abbott), we find that a greater percentage of Liberal voters distrusted Rudd (58%) than Labor voters distrusted Abbott (42%). Gillard appears somewhat less unappealing to the Libs (41%) , less than boith Swan 44% and Garrett (50%) and marginally above Wong (39% distrust). Conversely, nearly as many Liberals in December distrusted Turnbull (29% and 32% with Nationals) as did Labor voters (35%). So that has gotta tell you sumpin’ Dave! Even we pollsters with our sight afflication (sic) and irreversible brain damage can see that!
R. Wilson has relied on results 3 months old, versus recently obtained data. I would have expected a self-declared pollster to respect and rely upon recently obtained data in preference to that obtained back when Abbott and Turnbull had only just completed their bloodletting. The electorate knows much more of Abbott now than 3 months back – much of it unappealing. Similarly, Garrett and Wong have travelled a distance during the past 3 months, but that is irrelevant to the subject of the published piece.
The article as published is worthy of more respect than it has received from RW.