Leaders and the qual

The qualitative results on the approvals for Abbott and Shorten, as well as preferred prime minister undercut the results from the quants.

While the quants suggest Labor is doing much better than the Liberals, the qual suggests that Bill Shorten's position is not very strong and that the results on all three issues are governed by reactions for and against Tony Abbott.

Abbott Approval 14 05 15 Thumb

The first shows the word map for approval of Tony Abbott. If you click on it to enlarge you'll see that words like "lie", "liar", "power", "vision" and "tax" cluster around those who strongly disapprove of Abbott, while the words close to strong approval are "doing", "job", "decisions", "strong".

The two different points of view are summed up in these two quotes:

He has systematically lied to the Australian people about his intentions as PM during the election, about the state of the budget while in power, about facts (e.g. timing of decision on politicians'pay freeze) and enacted policies that maker no sense...

Tony Abbott sincerely believes in addressing pursuing effective management of Australia’s political and economic affairs so as to achieve medium and long term enduring national prosperity and productivity for the benefit of all Australians. In so doing he displays the character and competence necessary to do the job successfully.

Shorten Approval 14 05 15 Thumb

 The words most closely associated with strong approval of Bill Shorten are "needs", "better", "job", "effective" and "Abbott". They are lacking in detail. The words most closely associated with strong disapproval are "union", "unions", "man", "power", "mess", and "people". Not as closely associated are "Gillard" and "negative". These are much more specific words and refer to Shorten's association with the unions, his record as an executioner of leaders, and Labor's record in managing the economy.

The word "strong" appears close to him, along with "leadership", however these concepts are viewed negatively in Shorten's case.

Again a couple of quotes illustrate the two different views (the first is from an ALP voter):

With Labor so dessimated and with a Royal Commission into unions, Shorten is in a bad position to try and do anything and make a name for himself. The party needs a non-union assiciated leader whio can build a following based on strong policies that are different to the Governemtn and not trying to get to the right of them on key issues.

Bill Shorten would be so much better as a leader, if he could act like a strong leader. Start by working at doing what Bob Hawke did "Bringing Australians Together", renewing the Labor Party, and stop all his silly childish griping.

Preferred PM 14 05 15 Thumb

The most striking thing about this map is how sparse Bill Shorten's end is in concepts. The next most striking thing is that someone who isn't leader of either party, Malcolm Turnbull, makes a strong appearance. 

"Abbott" is one of the most cited reasons for voting for Shorten, meaning that his vote is reactive to Abbott (as Abbott's was to Gillard's when he was opposition leader). The word "strong" is associated with Abbott, and some of the verbatims suggest Labor would be better off with a leader other than Shorten. As the rules of the ALP have been set so that there almost certainly cannot be a change of ALP leader this side of the next election, that might end up being a problem for Labor.

Tony is doing a fantastic jobs in foreign affairs (FTA's with Japan and Korea), working with Indonesia and China and maintaining relations with USA and UK. He is leading a libertarian government which is minimizing government meddling in our lives; and is setting right the structural fiscal imbalance and delusional spending of the Rudd / Gillard / Rudd era.

Shorten is lacklustre but is the lesser of two appalling alternatives. People used to say Abbott would never be PM, but the electorate hated Gillard and Rudd so much that his election became the only reluctant option.

Share this article on your favourite social bookmarking sites:
Digg! Reddit! Del.icio.us! Google! Facebook! StumbleUpon! Twitter!


+4 #1 What does “strong” mean?Philip Machanick 2014-06-10 16:55
In my experience, in politics, if you replace the word “strong” by “stupid” you usually clarify meaning.
+2 #2 Shorten's leadershipCameron 2014-07-28 13:48
Labor's changes to the leadership selection process certainly increase stability, and reduce speculation, but they will not prevent a leadership change if Shorten loses the confidence of the caucus.

The hurdle is now just 60% of caucus opposed to Shorten instead of one more than half in favour.

Once that hurdle is passed, the leadership is lost. The members will surely not elect someone in the knowledge that well over half of his caucus have sufficiently lost confidence in his leadership to remove him.
+1 #3 RE: Leaders and the qualLorikeet 2014-11-09 09:59
I wanted to get rid of both Labor and Liberals from the parliament more than 35 years ago. This could be achieved with equal public funding for all candidates for election, along with equal media time. Then maybe Australia could start moving forward again instead of 1 step forward and 2 back.
+2 #4 RE: Leaders and the qualLorikeet 2014-11-09 10:02
I prefer Chris Bowen and Anthony Albanese to Bill Shorten as possible leaders of the ALP. The people selected Albo but were overruled behind the scenes by the UN. ;-)
+4 #5 RE: Leaders and the qualSpectrum 2014-11-09 16:41
I agree with Lorikeet. Albanese or Bowen would have been much better leaders. I predicted that Shorten would not be popular with the voters, basically because whilst earnest, he is also colourless and uninspiring.But the Labor party's new system of electing leaders ensures that they're stuck with him until after the next election.Why can't they ever seem to get it right ?

Actually as someone on here pointed out, they did - initially. The broader membership voted for Albanese, but they were overruled by the party machine.

Let's hope they haven't blown the chance of winning it by making Shorten the leader. But we need to get rid of Abbott, so please surprise us, Bill !
+1 #6 RE: Leaders and the qualal loomis 2014-12-06 06:53
if you are willing to submit to politicians, you convict yourself of sloth, ignorance, selfishness and simple weakness of intellect- in varying measures for each sheep.
which is why these comments are puerile nonsense. although there is a spark of sense in lorikeets 'removal of politicians' post.
the way to remove politicians is to establish democracy. run the nation through referendum and initiative, administered by the public service.