Nielsen asked an additional set of questions to accompany their vote estimates published in Fairfax today – two focusing on the ETS and another measuring the trust that people have in each leader.
The first question was a standard ETS question:
Do you support or oppose an Emissions Trading Scheme for Australia?
The next question asked on the ETS was over the government’s postponement:
Do you support or oppose the government’s decision to postpone the introduction an Emissions Trading Scheme for three years?
On the age cross-tabs for the two questions, we get:
Next up, Nielsen asked an interesting little question on trust:
On a scale of 0 to 10, where 0 is not at all trustworthy and 10 is extremely trustworthy, how trustworthy do you think the party leaders are?
If we split categorise the results such that “Untrustworthy” represents responses 0 through 4, “Neutral” represents response number 5 and “Trustworthy” represents responses 6 through 10, the headline figures for each leader and their distribution come in like this:
The cross-tabs for each leader come in like this:
We’ve got plenty to chew on here.
10 Comments
These can’t be right – less than 5% think Rudd and Abbott are mean?
Indeed! Lots of interesting numbers in here.
The Trust numbers for Rudd stand out. 38% of people actually don’t trust him. That’s going to make Budget/Election promises difficult to believe.
Same MOE as the Poll numbers?
It seems that most people want an ETS. However, like the Republic, no one can agree on the model.
Eponymous – same MoE on the headline figures. The cross-tabs carry MoEs between around 2% and 6%, depending on the exact question and cross-tab.
Non-cap city voters are less trusting than capital cities. Fits with my experience of country relatives being a bit paranoid about the government.
It would seem on the trust scale people are starting to make their mind up on Rudd, but not so much on Abbot yet. Distribution is similar, but many still in the neutral camp on Abbott.
I think trustworthiness is part of a reverse pike problem for Rudd. A lot of Labor voters held their noses and hoped Rudd was lying when he let the electorate believe he was really Howard lite in the 2007 campaign. Now they are horrified he is turning out to be just that – Howard lite in things like asylum seekers, internet filters etc. He is being punished as much for having not been lying in 2007 as much as for the relatively few genuine back-flips he has made in the last few months.
I see Conroy is one of those up for election this time around – what a pity we can’t rig things so he loses his seat.
That 0-to-10 question is completely silly. I mean, how is one supposed to make an objective decision between a “2″ and a “3″? Is that “Enrico Dandolo” and “Chopper Reid”?
Why not ask for a 0-to-100 rating, for extra superfluous precision!