In the Oz (tables at bottom).
A difference between Latham v Howard (2004) and Abbott v Rudd (2010): Latham generated the (at the time) highest approval ratings for an opposition leader. Abbott hasn’t (and won’t) done that.
But Latham also pushed the then PM’s approval up, while Abbott has dragged his opponent’s down. Well, Rudd has done much of that himself with his manic insecurity.
interesting that Abbotts approvals are pretty much on par with Rudd now but he still trails heavility in the preferred PM.
Peoples interpretation of approval can mean different things to different people. It could mean do you like his policies or it could mean do you think he is doing a good job (in the polls).
Government leaders almost always crush the Opposition Leaders in Preferred PM, no matter what the political situation. Maybe Rudd was an exception, but I can’t think of any other times an opposition leader consistently won the Preferred PM.
MDMConnell – I think (from memory) you’ll have to go back as far as 2007 for the last time an opposition leader usurped the PM on the preferred rating. Keating was also pretty unpopular(ish).
Peter – is the Federal Labor Party’s poll performance consistent with first term State Labor governments (maybe WA)?
I noted Rudd as an exception.
I don’t think Howard consistently beat Keating on preferred PM though. And there’s been plenty of dying state governments like Kirner 1992 who won the preferred Premier while being well behind everywhere else. See in NSW, O’Farrell hasn’t been able to open a big personal gap over Iemma, Rees or Keneally despite squashing them on the 2PP vote.
Keating generally was preferred to Howard, throughout the 1996 campaign anyway. OTH, Hewson generally preferred to Keating in 1993.
nfpsheppard: the first term WA government was doing very badly in the polls at this point.
Howard led Keating as Newspoll Better PM on a number of occasions before beating him in 1996. Beazley led Howard for most of the six months leading up to the 1998 election and was still ahead [albeit only by 41-40] in the last one. Beazley led Howard as Better PM for six or seven Newspolls in a row in the first half of 2001 [that is before Tampa]. Three months into his leadership [ie about where Abbott is now], Latham got within a point of being rated Better PM. Throughout his leadership [until he lost the election] he was much better placed than Abbott is now. At 30-55, Abbott is further behind than Latham ever was. Within 3 months of taking the leadership, Rudd led Howard as Better PM by 10 points and stayed ahead until he became PM. So while, yes, Rudd was exceptional in the speed and extent of his wresting the lead as Better PM, it’s not strictly accurate to say Prime Minister’s almost always ‘crush’ opposition leaders on that yardstick.
You have to hand to Shanahan. By focusing on the PM’s approval levels, he gave the lead to the media [including the ABC and SBS] to do the same. The 2PP vote became an aside. While many of us quibble with his reporting of polls, he seems to me to be more reasonable & measured – even evenhanded – in his comments before the cameras at Sky News. It is hard to believes that he could mostly write such nonsense about polls.
What should be hardest to believe, John, is the fact that ABC SBS etc clearly cannot think for themselves at all. But we’ve seen it all before. All they do is parrot the first opinion they hear.
Peter,
Will the wheels fall off the Abbott cart before August? Is this a product with a short shelf life?