Voters say they would be far more likely to back Labor if it was led by Kevin Rudd, according to today’s Essential Report.
Essential asked voters about their voting intention if a Rudd-led Labor Party was up against Tony Abbott’s Liberals. The result is a surge in Labor support that reverses its current dire polling position. This week, Labor’s primary vote remains at 32%, with the Coalition on 48% and the Greens on 11%, for the same 2PP result as last week, 55-45% in favour of the Coalition.
Asked for whom they’d vote if Rudd led Labor, Labor’s primary vote rose to 45%, at the expense of the Greens (8%) and the Coalition (42%). With Don’t Know respondents removed, Labor’s 2PP lead would be 53-47% — slightly bigger than the 52-48% 2PP result in Rudd’s last poll as prime minister in June 2010.
Rudd and Malcolm Turnbull are preferred leaders of their parties with voters, though not among their respective party’s voters. Essential also asked voters how a Turnbull-led Coalition would perform against Julia Gillard. Turnbull drives the Liberal vote up to 53%, but Labor’s vote only falls one point — the extra support for a Turnbull-led Coalition comes from the Greens vote, which falls to 8%. A Turnbull-led Coalition would lead Gillard Labor by 59-41% in 2PP terms.
Part of the explanation lies in the continuing problem for Gillard and Abbott that voters don’t have a high regard for them — a situation that is getting worse for both leaders. This week Essential asked voters about the attributes of Gillard and Abbott.
The Prime Minister recorded falls, in some cases substantial falls, in positive attributes since the same question was last asked in February, before the announcement of the carbon pricing scheme. Gillard has lost 10 points on trustworthiness — down from 40% to 30%, and 10 points on “a capable leader”, down from 52% to 42%. “Out of touch” rose from 50% to 60%. She’s still regarded as intelligent and hard-working, but she also had big falls on “more honest than most politicians” and “understand the problems facing Australia”.
Abbott didn’t see such big falls from February but he went backwards across the board: up four points on “superficial”, up three points on “out of touch”, up three points on “narrow-minded”, down two points on “trustworthy”, down two points on “understand the problems facing Australia”.
Despite Gillard recording such big falls, Abbott still trails the Prime Minister, often significantly, on several attributes. She has a big lead on “intelligent” (73-61%), trails by 12 points on “arrogant” and trails by eight points on “narrow-minded”. She trails slightly on “trustworthiness” — two points — and leads by three on “out of touch” and superficial. Neither leader is regarded as visionary — 26 and 27% — and neither receive an endorsement as “capable leader” — 42 and 45%.
I am still waiting to meet the Liberal supporters who actually want Mr Abbott as their leader.
The ordinary voters out there… who really want the libs back in, seem a bit embarrassed by Mr Abbott (so they should be). But they seem willing to put up with him for the supposed benefits that would come from Liberals in govt. (Not sure many can articulate them either… something about “turning the boats back” I think). Supposedly better for the economy, (though how embarrassing that Rudd and labor led the only modern western trading nation that did not fall into serious recession!). Supposedly better at… what else…? …
Bring back Rudd and Turnbull – the two guys who both got stabbed in the back by ambitious colleagues. With all the talk about Julia’s anniversary of stabbing Rudd in the back, the country seems to forget the coup against Turnbull that led to Abbott’s leadership of the Liberals! (Oh yes, one was in govt and the other not… like that makes it any less a stabbing!)
Absolutely correct, Jim. I have been saying for months that the only way Labor can win the next election is with Rudd as leader. I now feel vindicated!
Just goes to prove why every right leaning journalist (all across the media spectrum), voter, fellow-traveler, Labor politician, Uncle Tom Cobbly and all, want to destroy Kevin Rudd at all cost. Even Bernard Keane and Paul Barry are at it!!! Why can’t you all get it through your thick skulls that the people want this man, regardless of all the crap you use in your efforts to say it isn’t so?
The only thing missing from this poll was a question on who would win the contest between Rudd and Turnbull – wonder why? The contest numbers for Gillard/Rudd and Gillard/Turnbull don’t really give us the answer. How about asking the “missing question”, Essential?
@CML – I’m waiting for those who organise these polls to give us a list of the questions. To tell us if they ask the same people each week or a new bunch etc.
The poll out today about climate change only asks 1000 people the questions? 1,000 out of almost 23 million? Or at least, 13 million voters? My maths aren’t crash hot but that’s not many in which to then assert, “Australians” ?
Pity a poll hasn’t been conducted that included “hypotheticals” about Malcolm Turnbull leading a third party that is small “l” liberal…that would make interesting reading.
Indeed Liz45 – polls are highly questionable. Like you pointed out 1000 people are polled. And that tells us how 23 million people are thinking!?
I appreciate that samples can predict trends… On election night, with 3% of votes counted across the country, the result can be pretty closely identified. But there is a difference: that is 3% of 11 million voters (or however many there are). And they are spread across the country and the cities… all that. Not 1000 people polled.
And how are they polled? Are they rung up at home? At what time of the day? What happens to people who dont have home phones? or are night shift workers, (if asked in the evening). Or are they internet polls? If so, what about people who dont use the net and certainly dont respond to links to polls? Are they stopped in the street? If so, which streets? What kind of people are asking the questions? Are they intimidated by big, rough looking working class people so they might not ask them? How are the questions worded? We all know we can elicit the answer we want by the way the question is asked. And when the results are summarised by popular media, how close to the original question is the summary?
The success or not of a poll is demonstrated by the test of the final vote at election time… but that is 2 years away! Supposedly the main polling groups have “credibility”… they get paid big bucks by private companies to do polls, and so they cant afford to get things wrong and look silly. But you know what? I think it is all very “loose”. Any lining up with how we actually think is more a coincidence than reality I reckon! (Well, a bit anyway!)
I think the whole thing smacks of highly questionable processes…
So I reckon all Aussies should boycott polls. No more opinions being given out to be used against us! Or to be used to tell us how we are all supposedly thinking!