One of the things in Australian politics that never ceases to amaze is the way political commentators completely fail to understand the relationship between the Prime Minister and the public. If you read the papers for your weekly dose of Kevinology, you’d be forgiven for thinking that the Prime Minister is perpetually just one small political faux pas away from some great public reckoning in the polls, that his never ending honeymoon is an obscenity to the natural order that will collapse at any moment.
For some reason, the baseline of analysis nearly always starts and ends with the assumption that the electorate doesn’t actually like Kevin Rudd – that somehow, this most unlikely of Prime Ministers is pulling a gigantic public relations swifty.
Just why this delusion enjoys such widespread currency I’m not too sure – I have my theories, but they’re mostly defamatory so I’ll keep them to myself 
From the very beginning of the Rudd administration, this was a government that was liked. The week after the 2007 election, Newspoll asked about the dynamics of why people voted the way they did and the responses show clearly that Rudd wasn’t a Prime Minister born from a powerful lack of alternatives. In fact, that same question has been asked after every election since 1993 – the last election result was the strongest pro-party result in the question’s history.
People voted for Rudd rather than against Howard according to their own responses –and quite frankly, I’m more inclined to believe the public than any amount of navel gazing election analysis that speaks to the contrary.
Neither was this some transient electoral post-coitus dilectionis.
If we track the approval/satisfaction ratings from all the pollsters over the Rudd administration, as well as two key metrics of popularity – likable and trustworthy – a pretty obvious picture emerges of a Prime Minister that is popular, well approved, highly trusted and well liked – even among opposition voters.
Far from Rudd’s popularity being some false phenomena that clouds the proper understanding of Australia’s political dynamics, it’s an absolutely critical component of comprehending why things play out as they do.
For instance – the enormous popularity and trustworthiness of the PM was a major reason why Turnbull fell so far, so fast and so hard. By accusing a well liked PM of corruption – effectively telling the public that what they’ve believed these last few years was bullshit – when the accusation turned out to be based on a forgery, the public drove Turnbull like a tent peg. They hit him with the sort of response that most people have when someone tries to smear a friend with lies.
Rudd’s relationship with the public needs to be recognised for what it is – if we treat his popularity, his trustworthiness, his large approval ratings as some false phenomena without foundation, then we’ll be as confused as the columnists.
Popularity matters.
29 Comments
Completely agree – Rudd is very popular and all sides of politics won’t get anywhere until they realise that fact and base their strategy on that reality. And this is why good politicians laud the achievements of highly popular leaders from the other side, eg Blair’s praise of Thatcher, Beattie’s praise of Joh.
But I cannot think of an opposition leader who has been intelligent enough to do it when the popular leader is still in power. And I’m not going to hold my breath waiting for that day to arrive.
Perhaps what better oppositions do is focus only on the few negatives – the way that Rudd adopted Howard’s economic arguments and tax cuts while throwing all his attention on Workchoices. Howard tried to counter with his “change the government, change the country” argument, but Rudd’s popularity ensured that it didn’t work. Similarly Steve Bracks slogan at the 1999 Victorian state election was “a different style of leadership” which implied that the substance was identical, but you didn’t get Jeff’s dictatorial attitude.
I seem to recall the same sorts of things being said about George Bush early in his first term!
A very neat analysis Poss. But don’t imagine it will deflect the cynics like Tony Abbott and Glenn Milne from repeating unremittingly their deluded ‘all spin – no substance’ mantra. They can’t believe that Rudd is genuine and believe his likeability is an illusion afflicting a ’sleepwalking’ electorate. They want so desperately to believe their own rhetoric that they reject any facts and figures that don’t fit their hypothesis. Both are still asking ‘Who is the real Rudd’, convinced that when that spectre is exposed the scales will fall from our eyes and the horror of the actual Rudd will be exposed for all to see.
Dear Greg
It may well be so but there are differences among them
Rudd idn’t rely on his brothers dodgy electoral system to win
Rudd can string a coherrent sentence together perhaps in more than one language
Rudd travelled overseas before taking office
Rudd appears to have some ethics & morals and is not a faux christian
Thanks, Poss – I’ve been musing along these lines myself and wondered why someone hadn’t pointed it out.
IF Rudd was seen as the shallow, spin driven, egomaniac portrayed by many in the msm, then the polls might still show a thumping ALP 2PP and a big gap between ‘preferred PMs’ but they would provide very different answers to questions such as ‘who best to lead the Labor party’ ‘personal characteristics’ etc.
That the msm refuse to see this and don’t want to understand it demonstrates that what is ’seen to be’ in the hotbed of Canberra is different to what is seen by the average voter.
I remember a similar disconnect once, with two Victorian journalists discussing Kennett on ABC radio in the lead up to the 1999 election. One, who followed him on a daily basis, enthused about his charm and personability; the other gushed about the economic wonders he had wrought. Both were clearly smitten. Then they opened up to the lines to call back – and every single caller HATED Kennett.
It’d be interesting to know why the Canberra press gallery don’t like Rudd. That so many of them like Abbott is probably telling.
Ahhhh Kevin07. Krudd the original press gangstar. Kudos you really are a student of the game. How quickly all those election promises have been swept neatly under the advanced hair implants. Free computer for every child? Welfare reform? More uni places? Bring home the troops? Fair wages? Lets not forget that Mr and Mrs K.rudd made their first $100 million from providing foreign worker temps to the governments of both Howard and Blair. A friend to the aussie worker? There are only 8 million full time workers in Australia according to the latest cencus. That means there are 14 million aussies not working in full time jobs. Therefore the real unemployment rate is about 60%. Just spend as much time overseas as possible (to avoid questions) and make sure to supply the stock footage of you in yellow vest and hardhat every single day for the media. And the true romance with the Aussies will never end. I love you Kevey.
Typical conservative. Wants pensioners, children and the disabled to work for tuppence a day and a piece of stale bread.
Dear doofus – sorry, your preferred name is ‘coot’ – the unemployment figure is worked out as a percentage of people who want to work who aren’t, not as a percentage of the total population, which includes a large number of people who are too old, too young, too ill to work or who simply don’t want to (and are supported by others).
Ooops, by ‘don’t want to and supported by others’ I was referring to spouses whose work is raising children and are financially supported by other spouse.
Sorry zoomster. I am a life long left wing ALP and CFMEU member. My whole point is that $14 is way too low. People who work, study,volunteer part time, or are on ‘work for the dole’ (slavery) are wrongly counted as employed. And the stats are further cooked by ’seasonally ajusted’ figures. Pensioners and children should not have to work at all. I think all welfare should be increased. The real employment rate has been stable at 40% since 1989. So, sorry you are wrong on every point you raised. Another victim of the howard years education system- cant read, no english comprehension skills. Maybe lay off the ‘zoom’ and take mias advice- ‘take em home and make em study’ – Mia MIA 2006
Sorry zoomster. I am a life long left wing ALP and CFMEU member. My whole point is that $14 is way too low. People who work, study,volunteer part time, or are on ‘work for the dole’ (slavery) are wrongly counted as employed. And the stats are further cooked by ’seasonally ajusted’ figures. Pensioners and children should not have to work at all. I think all welfare should be increased. The real employment rate has been stable at 40% since 1989. So, sorry you are wrong on every point you raised. Another victim of the howard years education system- cant read, no english comprehension skills. Maybe lay off the ‘zoom’ and take mias advice- ‘take em home and make em study’ – Mia MIA 2007
Jesus wept
well – it certainly isn’t 5.8% – indeed I doubt if it has been below 20% since the mid 80s, but until we get honest figures, it’s anybody’s guess
Possibly the best index of underemployment lies here: http://e1.newcastle.edu.au/coffee/pubs/CLMI/2009/CLMI_total_Feb_2009.pdf
And back to the topic, I don’t think its particularly surprising that Rudd has enjoyed some genuine popularity. So far he’s met most expectations. Indeed a lot of popular comment criticising broken promises are really about the popular misunderstanding that governments are all powerful and can act immediately. For instance one comment I saw recently attacked Rudd over having to sign a Workplace Agreement not fully understanding that they hadn’t been phased out.
Rudd has also been able to make a lot of popular decisions – mostly funding. So, the polls don’t really surprise me. Yes, a lot of the MSM are so far up themselves they really do believe the universe is at fault. But for most people, their perception of the government hasn’t really got a lot to do with these people. Its more to do with how they and those they know are doing day to day, and to some extent, the tabloid TV shows intrudes into their thinking from time to time.
The die hard conservatives do have one thing right. And that is the one thing that could cause a rupture in public perception of the government is much higher under/unemployment. And of course they’re secretly hoping things go to shit. Infact a lot of them are so far gone they can’t believe it hasn’t happened. Mind you, not all in the msn are dinosaurs. There are some who are trying to promote a positive outlook.
Anyhow, the real challenge for Rudd is to keep the conservatives focused on the Debt/spending thing for which he has more public support than the conservatives want to believe. This also keeps the debate away from the thing he has to do in his next term that he doesn’t want talked about in the election – and that’s unwinding middle class welfare. Only then will we see if people really do trust/love Rudd.
Btw, going back to the Greens. I tend to agree with the school of thought that the Green vote isn’t parked, its real, and it was artificially low before the last election, partly because of Howard, but also because Rudd promised a reversal of policy on GW. Do you have any stats on how important that issue is as a vote changer? Its pretty clear to me that the Greens are pressing for higher cuts, because they know that their base is climbing.
Oh and Possum.. I did flirt with “mostly harmless”.. but that would be risking being hit by a Bowl of Petunias.. (Besides I have this terrible habit of accidentally putting a hoof on the occasional toe)..
9
Highly amusing take, billy – I’m a proud graduate of a high school of the Whitlam era (a touch of Mal in my latter years, don’t think it hurt me) and an English teacher of over twenty five years standing.
So don’t you go making false assumptions!
Well, yes, people who work are employed; people who study aren’t counted, neither are part time volunteers, or people on work for the dole.
Employment statistics are worked out from a sampling of a number of households across the nation. The questions asked concern whether a person is in part time or full time employment, whether they are seeking employment and whether (if part time) they would like to be working more hours (which is an extra stat always reported with the rest of the figures).
The number of people in employment and those seeking employment are counted as one big lump – basically ‘people who are willing to be employed’. The percentage of this lump of employable people who aren’t employed is the unemployment figure.
David, ‘honest figures’ is always debatable. The employment figures for Australia are, however, calculated on internationally accepted lines. The present method for calculating unemployment was explained to me in 1982, so it hasn’t changed much recently.
Oh, and I’m a multiple times ALP candidate and State delegate as well.
Those new born babies are just so lazy.
Re George Bush my recollection is that he was about as popular as Brendan Nelson until a national catastrophe made Americans rally around him. As Possum says Rudd’s popularity was high from the start.
Sorry, Poss, bored, did a bit of research.
Disclaimer: I’ve used rounded figures, because I wasn’t using a calculator. Some of the figures are from slightly different time periods, because the information is from multiple sources, not all from the same date (even ABS brands anything post-2007 as an estimate).
OK–
21 million Australians (approx). 7 million are of non working age (below 15, older than 65) = 14 million possible employees.
1.5 million live in single income households (that is, either mum or dad is not working).
Another 100, 000 are full time students (that figure seems a bit low, but it’s all I could find).
This leaves 12.4 million Australians of working age.
Of this, we know that 10.8 million are employed (full time or part time) and 670,000 are unemployed.
So the ‘missing’ number – the ‘hidden’ unemployed referred to by posters above – is less than a million (still a big number, yes, but not 60% and in part will be due to the dodginess of my figures – I would think, for example, that the student numbers are higher, as would the under 15 demographic).
So, if you made the rather dangerous assumption that all of that 1 million are out of work but aren’t telling anyone, the unemployment figure (% of those willing to work who aren’t) would be less than 10%.
Source: mainly ABS, but as they work in % rather than raw figures I’ve had to do some transposing.
Just realised my student figure should be much higher – I only counted tertiary students as part of the potential workforce, whereas of course I should have included all full time students over 15.
Bummer. Maybe tomorrow.
“I’m more inclined to believe the public than any amount of navel gazing election analysis that speaks to the contrary.”
tHEN WHAT IN HELL ARE YOU DOING PASSING YOURSELF OFF AS A jOURNO?
Zoomster – nice work, but I think it goes something like this:
YHBT. YHL. HAND.
another great analysis possum and underlines the real reason why the opposition is doing so badly. Rudd beat Howard by accepting that he was generally liked and popular, agreeing where necessary whilst forging a few important points of policy difference. The current opposition are incapable of this and it may take a few more election losses to turn this around
Seeing as the Liberal attempts to smear Rudd failed when he was the (very popular) leader of the opposition, why on earth did they think that they’d work now given that he’s not that much less popular than he was in mid-2007 and now has the gravitas of being the PM?
Bilbycoote you are being a moron!
If you think unemployment should be defined to = (total unemployed)/(total population)
you are either demanding children, the aged, the sick, the disabled and full-time parents should be working, or you think that some % of unemployment is fine, so what %age unemployment are you happy with???
The definition the ABS uses is sensible – the numerator is people who don’t have any work but would like some and have done something to try to get work
the denominator is those people plus everyone who has work. Thus the rate is the percentage of eligible people (the labour force) actually out of work.
The ABS also provides all the raw figures
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/6202.0Main+Features1Jun%202009?OpenDocument
if you’d like to make up your own definition
of unemployment, so next time you want to argue about numbers, do a little maths!
Peter
Had to google it!!
Well, yes, but I learnt something, and it’s a handy set of figures to know – not the first time this argument has arisen, and there’ll be people out there who don’t understand what’s wrong with it.
You don’t do these things to convince the troll who raised it, but for the other people reading who might believe it because they don’t understand how it all works.
And I learnt something. And then you posted your modern jive and I learnt something else.
Two things in 24 hours!!
It looks like Shaun Carney has been listening to you Possum.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/proceed-with-calm-20090710-dfzp.html
(Although he needs to remember to reference people)
Rudd is the incarnation of orderly progress and safety first. Combine that with swift and moderately bold action to combat the GFC then you have an unbeatable combination. We are just at the beginning of a 10+ year prime ministership and the next Liberal PM is almost certainly not in the parliament.
Rudd is an interesting contrast to Keating. Rudd makes an enormous and productive effort to discover what people want from a politician and a prime minister. The efforts he made on the Today show to mould his presentation to meet what people would expect and like is the most well-known example.
Keating, in contrast, decided for himself what a prime minister should be like – bold, brash and aggressive – and generated a large backlash. Of course, Howard also made large efforts to mould his political persona but the ‘traditional’ symbols he attached himself to became threadbare with over-use and he lacked a crucial connection to modernity and progress. Rudd’s achievement is to seem both safe and modern.
The only odd-seeming element is Rudd’s attachment to the word ‘revolution’. Perhaps the word has become so debased from over-use that it now means little more than safe, moderately progressive modernity.
Rudd has a very well crafted image. He seems to accept that he’s a nerdy intellectual type (whom the public don’t mind), but every now and then he throws in some okerisms (bit of swearing, dagewood dog, etc…).
Not being in the media I’m not sure why they hate him, but maybe up close he’s a complete pain in the arse. Its possible that up close he’s a driven megalomanic completely obsessed with power and holding onto it, dominating his cabinet colleagues and stifling party debate (sounds familiar doesn’t it).
Part of his popularity is also because the unions don’t seem to like him much (worked for Steve Bracks in Vic by being labour, but not too close to the unions), he has a very publicised work-ethic including pushing the public service hard and people feel like they know him because of his time of sunrise.
Regardless he will remain personally popular enough with the public to stay in power unless he has a gradually string of incidents that come across poorly or he gets tired and moves on.