Skip to content

Secret pro-Kevin Rudd polling buried by Labor

March 21, 2013


Julia Gillard faces the most crucial 24 hours of her leadership with a new report confirming that Labor polling taken on the eve of Kevin Rudd’s political assassination revealed a rebound for the overthrown PM.

The polling, which suggests that Labor could still have won an election in 2010 under Kevin  Rudd’s leadership, was kept a secret from him, most senior ministers and the majority of the Labor caucus due to fears it could have disrupted the leadership coup that was already under way.

The secret polling also contradicts the official Labor research used at the time to convince MPs to replace Mr Rudd.

The shocking revelations come as former minister Joel Fitzgibbon last night warned that there was “unrest” among Labor MPs and the party faced being “wiped out” at an election.


Mr Fitzgibbon, who supports Kevin Rudd, said “it’s so obvious something’s going on” inside the Government.

With Federal Parliament to sit today for the last scheduled session before the May 14 Budget, Mr Fitzgibbon appeared to start a countdown for a leadership change, saying it was a “silly concept” that Labor could make a switch between the Budget and the September 14 election.

It has emerged that while Labor officials had cancelled a round of scheduled polling the week before the June 24 coup, one had already been commissioned and was “in the field”.

The survey was conducted by UMR research on June 22-23, 2010 in the marginal South Australian seat of Kingston.

Results had started to filter back on the night of the coup.

They showed Mr Rudd well ahead of Tony Abbott as preferred prime minister at 50 to 39 per cent.

More critically, the numbers showed the swing against Labor was nowhere near as dire as was suggested to MPs, with only a 0.5 per cent swing against the Government in that marginal seat.

Senior Cabinet sources confirmed no one had been told about the Kingston numbers, claiming they would have been seen as “inconvenient”.

A spokesman for the PM said she had no knowledge of the Kingston numbers.

Several Cabinet sources now claim they believe the research shown to ministers and key MPs had been “cooked” up to support the case to dump Mr Rudd.

“Things weren’t great for the Government then, but they were nowhere near as bad as what was being suggested internally,” said a senior Cabinet source.

“There was certainly no case for changing the prime minister.”



17 Comments leave one →
  1. 2DT Shock Jock permalink
    March 21, 2013 10:00 am

    Nothing really surprises when it comes to this lying grub of a PM

    Labor will never recover from Gillard

    If any principle stands in the way of her retaining her leadership…………. she wont hesitate to destroy it.

  2. el gordo permalink
    March 21, 2013 10:10 am

    There is little doubt that she’s a nasty piece of work.

  3. 2DT Shock Jock permalink
    March 21, 2013 10:14 am

    How apt

    Today is apparently Harmony Day


  4. March 21, 2013 10:30 am

    When I read this story what surprised me was that no one in the caucus noticed the cancelled polling. that the ALP is a nest of Machiavellian schemes should surprise no one.

  5. Ol' Sancty permalink
    March 21, 2013 10:40 am

    Crean has laid the groundwork……2 1/2 years late.

  6. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    March 21, 2013 10:46 am

    I doubt whether there will be any challenge today or this week, and I really don’t understand why reports suggest that this is the last opportunity.

    Gillard used the knife and went to an election a couple of months later. Rudd can wait until may or later.

    Let Gillard baste.

  7. TB Queensland permalink
    March 21, 2013 10:52 am

    Thank goodness for the simple politics of the Liberal Party …

    Support for the Labor Party and Hawke strengthened in 1985 and 1986 and Howard’s approval ratings dropped in the face of infighting between Howard and Peacock supporters, a “public manifestation of disunity” over policy positions, and questions over Howard’s leadership.

    As the country’s economic position worsened in 1989, public opinion moved away from Labor, however there was no firm opinion poll lead for Howard or the Coalition.

    In February, Liberal Party president and prominent businessman, John Elliott, said confidentially to Andrew Peacock that he would support him in a leadership challenge against Howard, and in May a surprise leadership coup was launched, ousting Howard as Liberal leader.

    When asked that day whether he could become Liberal leader again, Howard likened it to “Lazarus with a triple bypass”. The loss of the Liberal Party leadership to Peacock deeply affected Howard, who admitted he would occasionally drink too much. Declining Peacock’s offer of Shadow Education, Howard went to the backbench and a new period of party disunity ensued.

    Howard served as Shadow Minister for Industry, Technology and Communications, Shadow Minister Assisting the Leader on the Public Service, Chairman of the Manpower and Labour Market Reform Group, Shadow Minister for Industrial Relations and Manager of Opposition Business in the House.

    Following the Coalition’s 1990 election loss, Howard had wanted to run again however he did not have enough support Peacock was replaced with former Howard staffer John Hewson who defeated Peter Reith, Peacock supported Hewson with generational change which took Howard’s name out.

    Howard was a supporter of Hewson’s economic program, with a Goods and Services Tax (GST) as its centrepiece. After Hewson lost the “unloseable” 1993 election to Paul Keating, Howard unsuccessfully challenged Hewson for the leadership.

    In 1994, he was again passed over for the leadership, which went to Alexander Downer.
    Opposition leader again

    In January 1995, leaked internal Liberal Party polling showed that with gaffe-prone Downer as leader, the Coalition had slim chance of holding its marginal seats in the next election, let alone of winning government. Media speculation of a leadership spill ended when, on 26 January 1995, Downer resigned as Liberal Leader and Howard was elected unopposed to replace him.

    [42] The Coalition subsequently opened a large lead over Labor in most opinion polls, and Howard overtook Paul Keating as preferred Prime Minister. </blockquote.

  8. TB Queensland permalink
    March 21, 2013 10:56 am

    If Rudd took the leadership – what would actually change?

    Policies would be the same … court cases would be the same … biased media reports would be the same … Thomson would be the same … Slipper, Ashby, Brough, Abbott Pyne ……………….. the faceless men and women on both sides – playing their puppetry …

  9. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    March 21, 2013 11:03 am

    I don’t agree TB.

    • I think Rudd would possibly win an election. So it’s a choice between ALP decimation and a possible ALP win.
    • If Rudd won, he would be determined to take a strong roll in some internal ALP reform. This is vital.
    • Rudd has previously said election of Gillard would represent a “lurch to the right” on asylum seekers. How right he was.
    • Rudd would represent a sense of democratisation, as people preferred him at the time of his knifing, and have maintained this opinion since.
    • Rudd would introduce a new Cabinet, getting rid of a range of chain draggers such as Swan.
    • Rudd has sent some signals that he would be supportive of marriage equality, he hasn’t painted himself into a corner the way Gillard has.

    Return to Rudd would provide the ALP with impetus, even if they lost they would remain a viable party, the likelihood is that it would be a more transparent and progressive government than the current incompetent, dishonest one.

  10. Splatterbottom permalink
    March 21, 2013 11:26 am

    “If Rudd took the leadership – what would actually change?”

    Perhaps not much. But that vicious, malicious, odious, malodorous, vacuous, conniving, backstabbing, noxious, debauched, double-dealing, rotten, lying mongrel masquerading as our PM would get her come-uppance. The victim of her bloody lust for power would be restored to office and, for a few months until the election, a better person would be our country’s leader.

  11. March 21, 2013 11:36 am

    Glad to see that you are showing such restraint in your description of Gillard SB

  12. Splatterbottom permalink
    March 21, 2013 11:39 am

    Indeed. If she was as bad as John Howard she would have gotten both barrels.

  13. March 21, 2013 11:47 am


    But unlike John Howard I don’t expect that anyone is going to remember her administration at all fondly, least of all Labor voters

  14. el gordo permalink
    March 21, 2013 12:04 pm

    ‘If Rudd took the leadership – what would actually change?’

    If he doesn’t get rid of that odious tax, then nothing will change for the better.

  15. March 21, 2013 12:18 pm

    Agreed El Gordo, getting rid of the whole “clean energy future” nonsense would be essential but I can’t see Rudd being so bold, my best guess is that He would run on the basis that “I’m Kevin and I’m not Tony Abbott” rather than anything truly radical.

  16. el gordo permalink
    March 21, 2013 12:20 pm

    Crean takes his numbers to the Rudd camp.

  17. Tom of Melbourne permalink
    March 21, 2013 1:17 pm

    So there will be a spill!!

    Crean will support Rudd!!! Shorten for Treasurer!!

Go on say something, you'll feel better...

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: