Most people are still treating the opinion polls, showing a big lead for Labor, with a grain of salt and sometimes more. They may be right – views can change a lot in an election campaign. But this poll undertaken by the US Studies Centre at the University of Sydney (PDF over the fold) suggests that Howard will have a fair bit of trouble winding back Labor’s lead. It doesn’t ask anything about party preferences, but it does ask about issues that seem likely to drive quite a lot of votes, including attitudes to Iraq, climate change and George Bush. It seems reasonably to bet that someone who strongly opposes the war in Iraq, strongly supports action on climate change and strongly dislikes George Bush is going to put Labor ahead of the government, and vice versa. People who have neutral qualified views on these issues are likely to decide on other grounds. So, we can use the proportion giving “strongly agree/disagree” answers to get an idea of the core votes for the parties. So here are some results
Australias involvement in Iraq*; Strongly oppose 41, strongly support 10
Climate Change; More serious than Islamic fundamentalism 40, Less serious 20
Overall opinion of Bush: Very unfavourable 39, Very favourable 4
On all these questions, there are around 40 per cent of respondents with strong support for the position most strongly opposed to that of the government. Presumably, the composition of this group varies a bit from question to question, but still it seems fair to say that Labor is going into the election with a base of 40 per cent, while the government’s core support is 5-10 per cent.
* Asking after a question about Al Qaeda reduced this to 34
An interesting sidelight is that, when people were asked how “most Australians” viewed Bush, the answers (68-78 per cent unfavorable, 19-30 per cent favorable, depending on format) were almost identical to those for the question “How do you personally view the American President”, (67-69 per cent unfavorable, 27-28 per cent favorable). This kind of finding is quite common, but it doesn’t make sense. Most people who take a favorable view of Bush ought to be aware that they are in a minority, and those taking the opposite view that they are in the majority, so that nearly everyone should respond that most Australians have an unfavorable view, regardless of their own feelings
John Quiggin 
I recall there was considerable controversy over which institution got to host this centre and that Rupert Murdoch and the Howard Government were major donors.
According to its own website:
Primary objectives of the United States Studies Centre are to:
* deepen Australian knowledge and understanding of the United States, particularly its culture, political system and government, so strengthening the relationship between the countries;
* complement and provide leadership on current Australian-United States educational projects;
* educate Australians in aspects of the United States relevant to their future careers, enabling them to engage with Americans more effectively;
* promote collaborative research and other programs between institutions in Australia and the United States.
So I’m at a bit of a loss to understand how (yet another bleedin’) opinion poll on Australian attitudes to issues like global warming and involvement in Iraq falls within its charter. One would have thought there were other research projects that would have gathered data more relevant to its charter.
Ken, I’ve given a somewhat selective summary of the results that interested me. Most of the questions concerned relations with the US.
My deeply conservative lifetime Liberal voting parents (god bless em) think that Iraq has been a disaster and that Bush is a damn fool. But they’ll still vote for for the Coalition.
bad news is good news
I too think Iraq has been a disaster and Bush is a damn fool. I’d vote for Hillary in the upcoming US election if I could (no US citizenship yet). But there’s no way I’ll vote for Labor and Rudd in Australia. Too many old-school unionists and Latham-style class-haters lurking in the shadows for that.
And what’s with Gillard’s affected bogan-speak? Drives me nuts. She’s a lawyer for crying out loud.
damn right – I wouldn’t pay $500 an hour to a lawyer to have them sound so awfully working class.
wilful,
For $500 an hour you would not even get a good working-class lawyer – just a mid-range senior associate. Partners, like Gillard was, would be comfortably over $1,000 per hour.
Funny how most of the working class people I know don’t talk like Gillard. It’s one thing to speak that way when that is how you grew up. It’s quite another to fake it for political reasons. Makes me puke
Having known Julia for 20+ years, she’s always spoken that way and isn’t affecting anything. Any why should she change the way she speaks? It’s what she says – not the way she sounds – that should be important to you, Mugwump.
Seriously, where does the accent come from? I believe her parents are welsh, so no clues there.And you would think that through university and ambulance chasing, her accent might have been refined somewhat. But no. What gives?
She shouldn’t. But apparently she has; her manner is exceptionally unlikely given her background. I may be wrong, but I call “pseud”.
People’s ability to change their accent varies hugely. Many folks pick one up when they are young and can’t change it. Same people mangle second languages. Other people’s pronunciation will fly clear across the Pacific after a few hours with an American life coach.
Mind you, the assumption that successful people in middle class professions are pseuds if they don’t learn to speak propah rather gets on my petit-bourgeois tits, darlin’.
My old dad still uses “oi” for “I” what he learnt from his shipyard family eighty years ago; my gran on the other side had a West Country burr until her dying day.
Anyway, the accent snobs are gunna get theirs – the kids all have that open vowelled word and sentence ending that makes them sound like Valley girls crossed with Speedy Gonzalez. The accent is changing beyond our control.
Funny that, just the other day ’round the barbie, we were dissing out on Julia because we reckoned she’d softened her accent since the campaign had started and she got her hair made over as well. We liked the old Julia with the twang and the floppy fringe- we reckon it’s the new Julia that’s fake. Jeez, what an election will do to you!
It would be one thing if you ran across people like Gillard on a regular basis. But she’s the only one I have ever encountered with her background and that accent.
I give it a less than 5% chance of being natural, and a greater than 95% chance of being cultivated to help boost her working-class credentials.
Once upon a time the Labor party drew from the cream of the working class and you’d hear that sound a lot more often in party forums. Nowadays they draw from the dregs of the middle class and it has all but disappeared.
Anyway, Mugwump has successfully taken us off-topic (assigning what appear to be confidence intervals to his “gut-feel” prejudices).
Back on topic and the curious result that JQ notes: perhaps a substantial number (half?) of those who regard Bush unfavourably thought to themselves” “Well, I regard Bush unfavourably, as do most people I know; but anytime someone criticises him they get slapped with the tag “Anti-American” – so maybe I’m in the minority”.
Not forgetting the (albeit tiny) number of respondents who regard Bush favourably and are convinced that the majority of Australians share their world view. I’m thinking David Flint types.
Mugwump, you would have to have a provincial ear to notice anything in Gillard’s speach. As MerriC points out what matters is the content. Gillard is one of the clearest thinkers Australian politics has on offer. Her analytical skills are brilliant and her attention to detail is enthralling. She may come to leadership with preconceptions, as do all new leaders, but it is my observation that the realities of government wipe those away and a leaders value is in their applied intelligence. Australia is heading for a period of inspired leadership.
But it seems to me by your comments that perhaps you feel threatened by clever women.
David tiley: You are quite correct about the accent getting worse. You would think with all the american influences that our accent would go in that direction, but no.I overheard some waitresses the other day and they were straight out of the Pauline Hanson phrasebook. Yuck.
I blame the education system (of course!)
Julia Gillard has spoken like that at least since she was an undergraduate — I remember that flat Adelaide suburban accent when she gave speeches at the Australian Union of Students congress. Plenty of well educated Adelaidians of working class background speak as she does. Imagine the criticism if she’d picked up a Downer-style plum in the mouth. Perhaps Mugwump needs to get out more, or stop assuming that all Australians share his minority views on accents.
Umm – no. I said I’d vote for Hillary. My wife has a PhD and runs her own business.
Personally, I don’t find Gillard particularly clever.
But interesting that she hails from my home town Adelaide – I didn’t know that. Wiki says she went to Unley High School; she definitely didn’t pick up her accent there. It is the top public High School in Adelaide and slap bang in the middle of the wealthiest suburbs (median house price in Unley recently eclipsed $1M).
“why should she change the way she speaks?”
mugwump: “She shouldn’t. But apparently she has”
Simpler just to say liar, liar, pants-on-fire.