'; ?>
The trust deficit |
It's a given that most people don't trust politicians as a group, but that doesn't stop politicians running on the basis of being more trustworthy than their opponents, and that's where this election started out. On the basis of our polling, this is not a strong position for Labor as their leader is less well-liked and less trusted than his opponent by those who have applied their mind to the next election. (Our panel is made up of people who, while not necessarily experts, are much more interested in politics than the average. They tend to arrive at judgements that are similar to the rest of Australia, they just get there faster.) On the question of whether they approve of the job Kevin Rudd is doing as Prime Minister, there is a net disapproval. Significant factors are the disapproval ratings in the Green and Minior Parties, and that ALP voters are less likely to support him than Liberal voters are to oppose him. Tony Abbott also gets net disapproval for the job he is doing as Opposition Leader, but he is still 18 points ahead of Rudd. Here Labor and Liberal are almost evenly opposed, and Abbott gets a bare nod from the minor parties. This translates into Abbott being the preferred prime minister (although one can take it from the above this is not an enthusiastic endorsement of him for this position). In his opening comments of the campaign Kevin Rudd said that the election is about trust. This is not a strong proposition for him. Only two-thirds of Greens and 18% of Minor Party voters trust the ALP more than the Libs. Tony Abbott replied that it wasn't about trust it was about who was more "fair dinkum". This seems to be a reasonable proposition for him. The propositions are similar and the results are smilar too. So why would you trust Liberal rather than Labor? A variety of reasons including past performance in general, and past performance in terms of telling the truth - the carbon tax promise still resonates.
Responses were different on the question of who was more "fair dinkum" and the carbon tax didn't make an appearance here. |
Comments
Perhaps a lot of people had forgotten. or perhaps they remembered Rudd teling the same lies though he didn't get the chance to act on them.
A curiosity to me for example has been the widely reported and never openly challenged idea of the Howard and Costello governments huge surplus as being the result of good economic management. That is a blatant lie given that up to about 80% of the surplus could be directly attributed to selling off of public assets. The fact this does not get challenged at all in mainstream media is as disturbing as it is telling.
In short, the media has blatantly driven public perceptions about honesty vs dishonesty and this position has not been challenged (or rather, given the same public space for challenge) in open and honest debate.
RSS feed for comments to this post